_______               __                   _______
       |   |   |.---.-..----.|  |--..-----..----. |    |  |.-----..--.--.--..-----.
       |       ||  _  ||  __||    < |  -__||   _| |       ||  -__||  |  |  ||__ --|
       |___|___||___._||____||__|__||_____||__|   |__|____||_____||________||_____|
                                                             on Gopher (inofficial)
   URI Visit Hacker News on the Web
   URI   DigitalOcean S-1
   DIR   text version
        AlchemistCamp wrote 3 days ago:
        I've been a happy Digital Ocean customer for years and would not bet
        against their continued growth!
        ab_testing wrote 3 days ago:
        Can anyone tell from the S1, how much are they valuing themselves with
        355M ARR in 2020.
        download13 wrote 3 days ago:
        Does this mean we need to worry about service degrading as the company
        gets financialized?
        ing33k wrote 3 days ago:
        They have an almost perfect, managed K8S offering.
        Major issue that I am facing with them currently is their managed load
        balancer offering. They have a cap of 40k  Maximum Simultaneous
        Connections / second. I am mostly sure that they are not measuring it
        they have random resource limits which don't make sense.
        Also I think AWS lightsail is a competition to DO, but AWS doesn't seem
        to be promoting it that much.
          stvnitt wrote 3 days ago:
          I had no idea they offered managed K8s. How does it compare to their
          competitors (if you’re knowledgeable about them as well?)
        Mistri wrote 3 days ago:
        I bought my first DigitalOcean VPS for $5/month in high school. The
        same one is still running today, around 4 years later. One of the best
        investments I've ever made, allowing me to self-host a ton of my side
        projects, Discord bots, and anything else I might want.
        I've barely used half of my storage and my CPU/RAM is consistently
        sitting at 30-40% usage. Incredibly affordable for students like me.
        Plus, their interaction with students is fantastic (they throw free
        credits at us all the time).
        mxschmitt wrote 3 days ago:
        Maybe dumb more general question, but when is it then available on the
        stock market?
        ksec wrote 3 days ago:
        Congrats to DO.
        Really like the direction DO is going. Which is something in between
        millions of small VPS firm and giant like AWS. It also forced Linode to
        React. And proved the space in Cloud Hosting exist, which company like
        Vultr and UpCloud are now joining. And I think their features are
        finally close to hitting the perfect spot. With all the essential like
        DBaS, Object Storage and K8s.
        They have also ( finally ) introduced AMD EPYC CPU, ( no more explicit
        mention of Intel CPU on their homepage ). Which is good for their
        margin since price / core count are cheaper.
        So DO today is something I would like as an AWS competitor in 2016. 
        And they are finally here. I am not sure if there are any other low
        hanging fruit at all. Or what features I would want for a company
        competing at this space. It will be things that people dont see, like
        CPU performance, SSD Performance, Services Reliability, Interconnect,
        Better Network, More Locations, security improvement....
        There are only two suggestions I could think on top of my head right
        First is the pricing structure and list. It is getting very messy and
        AWS like. SSD Storage variant should be a simple calculable option, not
        an extra line on pricing table that tries to bombard me with extra
        information. And I know Basic Droplet are burst-able CPU resources, but
        not showing they are vCPU ( a Single Thread ) and calling them CPU
        doesn't really rhymes with me.
        Second is Full BareMetal Monthly option. Something like vultr [1] is
        offering. I am not sure if below $100 is feasible. Basically it  should
        be something that offer much better price / performance at a monthly
        payment that pushes people with low spending to metal for baseline load
        with headroom as insurance. Pushing up Average User Spending.  It
        should also be attractive to small business. ( Although arguably Linode
        and Vultr has yet to expand or launch Metal seems to suggest otherwise
   URI  [1]: https://www.vultr.com/products/bare-metal/
          chrisweekly wrote 3 days ago:
          I'm a fan of DO too. In terms of "what's missing?", how about the
          equivalent of AWS Lambda@Edge or Cloudfront EdgeWorkers? ie, a NodeJS
          runtime as close to the end user as the nearest CDN edge.
            chrisweekly wrote 3 days ago:
            ^ beyond annoyed w myself
            for writing "Cloudfront EdgeWorkers" (not even a thing) when I
            meant CloudFlare Workers.
              kentonv wrote 3 days ago:
              We were going to call it that, bought the domain names and
              everything, but a competitor registered a trademark on the name
              the week before we launched. Oops.
              Remember kids, always register your trademarks.
                HappyDreamer wrote 3 days ago:
                What were you going to call it?
                The competitor, was it DigitalOcean? (Or am I misunderstanding
                :-) )
                  kentonv wrote 3 days ago:
                  (I work on Cloudflare Workers.)
                  (But in my previous comment I totally missed that chrisweekly
                  said "Cloudfront" and not "Cloudflare", lol.)
                    HappyDreamer wrote 2 days ago:
                    Ok thanks for explaining :-)
            ksec wrote 3 days ago:
            The problem with Runtime at Edge is that they are extremely
            engineering intensive, given it isn't just hosting but the whole
            software stack involved. ( See CloudFlare Workers for Example )
            Which is sort of outside the sweet spot that DO is currently
            enjoying or operating in. I am not sure if it is a sound strategic
            decision to persuade. Although I would certainly love to see
            competition in that area.
              chrisweekly wrote 3 days ago:
              Well yeah, if you care enough about performance that it matters
              whether the "server" runtime is at the data center or the edge,
              it's kind of a given it won't all be completely automagic. But it
              is, thankfully, becoming an increasingly straightforward path to
        neycoda wrote 3 days ago:
        Public companies are when private companies have grown to the point
        that the leaders don't know what to do with it and can't figure out how
        to compete any longer.
        dbyrd wrote 3 days ago:
        I used to work at DigitalOcean. Can confirm we didn't think a lot about
        Linode. We saw AWS as the real competitor. If there was someone in the
        VPS market we respected and tried to emulate it would have been OVH,
        not Linode.
        throwawaygulf wrote 3 days ago:
        I wonder how all the leftist activist employees that were shown the
        door feel after leaving six months ago. Bitcoin's meteoric rise,
        Coinbase market cap at the level that it is, IPO, etc.
        Coinbase reduced risk by kicking out leftists. Hopefully the rest of
        SV/Bay Area companies follow suit.
        croh wrote 3 days ago:
        Big fan of DO from start. Intutive UI, cheap resources, never had issue
        with infra. And great knowledge base. But the fact I loved most is a
        straight billing. There are never surprises at end of month.
        Sadly all mistakes done by AWS are picked up by other big vendors like
        GCP,Azure. Cloud vendors are more focused on adding as many features as
        possible. Who cares about user experience ? We got covered by
        pqdbr wrote 3 days ago:
        If someone from DigitalOcean is reading this, PLEASE, we need a
        datacenter in Brazil.
          toast0 wrote 3 days ago:
          Brazil is really expensive to operate in. A DC in Miami would reduce
          latency noticably, but should be reasonable costwise.
            crazygringo wrote 3 days ago:
            Curious why? Is it because of the insane taxes (100+%) on imported
            electronics? Employment taxes? Or some other reason?
        gist wrote 3 days ago:
        Use case of DO vs. AWS or Google Cloud or similar?
        philliproso wrote 3 days ago:
        I have a $20pm droplet with ubuntu with auto updates (Including major
        release) from 2014. So it has done 14->18. DB with web app. I have
        never had anything more stable since.
        gregjw wrote 3 days ago:
        Cool! Long time user, good luck.
        utahcon wrote 4 days ago:
        Have been a user and fan of DO for years. Their product offering
        doesn't grow as fast as some cloud providers, but they are still my
        favorite for just about everything.
        Zelphyr wrote 4 days ago:
        I love DigitalOcean and would prefer to build my new project on their
        platform.  Unfortunately, the one and only thing that is keeping me
        from doing so is their support.  It's great, don't get me wrong. 
        Whenever I've contacted them I've gotten helpful responses.
        However, for this particular project I feel like it is important to be
        able to get a human on a phone when I need support.  If they offered
        that, I'd move away from AWS in a heartbeat.
          mtnGoat wrote 4 days ago:
          but... have you ever gotten anyone useful and able to do anything for
          you on AWS exorbitantly priced support?
          in almost a decade, i havent. actually gotten more done tech related
          by calling the billing support, then i have through calling paid
          technical support.
          That said all my experiences with DO support were much worse.
        alfg wrote 4 days ago:
        Thank you Digital Ocean! I've been a customer since the early days and
        had just a few problems, but they were quick to answer and address. I
        love the simplicity of their platform and will continue to use their
        pid_0 wrote 4 days ago:
        I just cannot fathom why people would use a tier 2 cloud provider over
        AWS or GCP. It can't possibly be significantly cheaper. The tooling is
        non-existent. There is little third party tutorials/documentation
        compared to tier 1.
        Why would anyone buy this?
          johnthedebs wrote 4 days ago:
          Because (comparing DO to AWS) it is much cheaper for many use cases,
          there is good tooling and documentation, and the user experience is
          dramatically better. I'm curious - on what did you base your
            pid_0 wrote 3 days ago:
            Years of tier 1 experience and trying to replicate those workloads
            on DO to see what the fuss is about. They are not remotely the
            same. How is the user experience better? Third party support like
            Terraform is objectively worse for DO
        simonebrunozzi wrote 4 days ago:
        Should I disclose this? Well, why not?
        I interviewed at DO a few years ago. I don't want to share the details,
        but it was the most annoying, unprofessional and disorganized set of
        interviews that I have ever witnessed in my life (I did ~140-150
        interviews in my life for ~25 companies). The best part is that I was
        introduced to the company by one of their board members.
        Since then I kept thinking that I really liked the product, but I would
        expect them to fail as a company.
        Maybe DO's IPO proves that I was wrong, or maybe that they will be
        economically successful despite what I have witnessed.
          vinay_ys wrote 4 days ago:
          Was it just that they didn't have the usual setup of recruiters,
          coordinators etc to manage the hiring loop well?
          If they are less than 300 people company grown over a very slow pace,
          that's understandable.
          ianlevesque wrote 4 days ago:
          Disclose what? There’s no actionable details there.
        Jamieee wrote 4 days ago:
        I used Nanobox quite heavily before DO bought them.
        But was a bit surprised when I saw the below, does this mean that they
        only payed $3,544 for the company? Or is there more to it than that?
        > On April 4, 2019, the Company acquired 100% of the outstanding equity
        of Nanobox, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Nanobox”), a deployment
        and management platform provider for cloud infrastructure. The final
        purchase price for Nanobox was $3,544 and the acquisition has been
        accounted for as a business combination.
          iav wrote 4 days ago:
          It’s in thousands - $3.5mm
            Jamieee wrote 3 days ago:
            I didn't spot that! Thanks! That's a bit better.
        czbond wrote 4 days ago:
        DOCN. Anyone know the date?
          dizzydot wrote 3 days ago:
          Only official word I can find is Q4 2020 or Q1 2021.  So....soon?
        azinman2 wrote 4 days ago:
        Anyone else find it interesting that their revenue graph only starts in
        2017? At what I’d assume to be a pretty low number given how long
        they’ve been around and how explosive the VM world has grown? Seems
        like if they hadn’t taken all that VC capital there’s no way they
        could have afforded any of their growth.
        It worried me that they’re only at a couple hundred MM in a
        self-proclaimed 116B+ opportunity after 10 years.
          quacker wrote 4 days ago:
          It worried me that they’re only at a couple hundred MM in a
          self-proclaimed 116B+ opportunity after 10 years.
          Yes. How do they grow further? DO will be compared to AWS and Azure
          in the market, and there's a good chance their stock will be punished
          as a result. Plus, if DO actually makes in-roads in market share, AWS
          is a beast that, if it wants, can crush them on pricing and features
          for long enough to kill them.
        emgo wrote 4 days ago:
        The biggest threat to DigitalOcean is that AWS, Google, and Microsoft
        are all going vertical by designing and manufacturing their own chips.
        Over times they'll be able to get hardware for cheaper, and also more
        specialized hardware that uses less power.
        DigitalOcean will have to buy CPUs from Intel or Nvidia/ARM at a higher
        cost, and eventually maybe even from AWS or Microsoft, essentially
        giving money to their competition.
        If DigitalOcean doesn't get into semiconductors quickly, the only two
        logical outcomes are to either go bust, or to be acquired by a major
        cloud provider as a low-cost branch, like airlines do.
          sabalaba wrote 3 days ago:
          > the only two logical outcomes are to either go bust, or to be
          acquired by a major cloud provider
          Or just continue to build a profitable, cash flow positive business
          that continues to grow for years and years to come. Business outcomes
          are often not binary.
          dusing wrote 4 days ago:
          Interesting theory, maybe DO should partner with Apple.
            xuki wrote 3 days ago:
            Assuming that Apple want to sell their chip to you. And that’s
            almost certainly a no.
          jmull wrote 4 days ago:
          I think there's a lot of doubt whether, in the long run, doing your
          own hardware makes sense for a cloud provider.
          If you work yourself into a performance dead-end, you can spend
          billions and end up with a chip that isn't particularly competitive.
          Whereas if your supplier does that, you can switch suppliers.
          You could spend $X billion, end up with a chip that isn't
          particularly competitive and just have to eat those billions.
          You bring up airlines... airlines don't build their own airplanes.
            unethical_ban wrote 3 days ago:
            It might be the megacorporate equivalent of "strategic assets" for
            nation-states. Keep a chip division going and spun up, if only to
            have a core competency as a backstop.
            ksec wrote 3 days ago:
            Copying a reply [1] I did on HN some time ago. Which should add
            some perspective on the point being discussed.
            AWS are estimated to be ~50% of HyperScalers.
            HyperScalers are estimated to be 50% of Server and Cloud Business.
            HyperScalers are expanding at a rate faster than other market.
            HyperScaler expanding trend are not projected to be slowing down
            anytime soon.
            AWS intends to have all of their own workload and SaaS product
            running on Graviton / ARM. ( While still providing x86 services to
            those who needs it )
            Google and Microsoft are already gearing up their own ARM offering.
            Partly confirmed by Marvell's exit of ARM Server.
            >The problem is single core Arm performance outside of Apple chips
            isn’t there.
            Cloud computing charges per vCPU. On all current x86 instances,
            that is one hyper-thread. On AWS Graviton, vCPU = Actual CPU Core.
            There are plenty of workloads, and large customers like Twitter and
            Pinterest has tested and shown AWS Graviton 2 vCPU perform better
            than x86. All while being 30% cheaper. At the end of the day, it is
            workload / dollars that matters on Cloud computing. And right now
            in lots of applications Graviton 2 are winning, and in some cases
            by large margin.
            If AWS sell 50% of their services with ARM in 5 years time, that is
            25% of Cloud Business Alone. Since it offer a huge competitive
            advantage Google and Microsoft has no other choice but to join the
            race. And then there will be enough of a market force for Qualcomm,
            or may be Marvell to Fab a commodity ARM Server part for the rest
            of the market.
            Which is why I was extremely worried about Intel. (Half of) The
            lucrative Server market is basically gone. ( And I haven't factored
            in AMD yet ) 5 years in Tech hardware is basically 1-2 cycles. And
            there is nothing on Intel's roadmap that shown they have the chance
            to compete apart from marketing and sales tactics. Which still goes
            a long way if I have to be honest, but not sustainable in long
            term. It is more of a delaying tactics. Along with a CEO that
            despite trying very hard, had no experience in market and product
            business. Luckily that is about to change.
            Evaluating ARM switch takes time, Software preparation takes time,
            and more importantly, getting wafer from TSMC takes time as demand
            from all market are exceeding expectations. But all of them are
            already in motion, and if these are the kind of response you get
            from Graviton 2, imagine Graviton 3.
   URI      [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25808856
            zapita wrote 3 days ago:
            > You bring up airlines... airlines don't build their own
            Some of them refurbish and operate their own engines (by far the
            most complex part of the airplane) instead of going to GE or Rolls
            Delta actually operates their own oil refinery.
            So airlines are in fact a good    analogy.
            tekno45 wrote 3 days ago:
            All the cloud providers also USE their huge infrastructure for
            other purposes as well. So when they do hit, it has a big effect.
            make a chip 2% more efficient in your public cloud AND your private
            cloud, that is also generating money? You've got BIG savings.
            veltas wrote 4 days ago:
            Although the difference with airlines is nobody is pooling the
            wealth of the world into airlines, investors think tech is going to
            take over everything. Your cloud providers are being valued like
            they are going to either run the world at some point or get some
            compensation for being dismantled by international policy. And when
            your investors think this way, and you make as much money as these
            companies do, you might as well make your own chips.
            mywittyname wrote 4 days ago:
            Plus you have to provide most, or maybe all, of the support for
            software.  Not just making compilers and related dev tools, but
            also building and testing of pre-compiled binaries for popular OSS.
            That's fine for a few major pieces of OSS, and for internal,
            cloud-only software (Redshift, BigQuery), but I don't think that
            concept scales well, or is particularly quick to adapt to market
              mritchie712 wrote 4 days ago:
              Also, to pile on, for any company that runs a real sales process,
              Redshift and BigQuery are losing to Snowflake. So the argument
              for custom chips doesn't seem that compelling.
          libria wrote 4 days ago:
          > AWS, Google, and Microsoft are all going vertical by designing and
          manufacturing their own chips
          What are the GCP and Azure equivalents of AWS Nitro?
            mywittyname wrote 4 days ago:
            For GCP, it depends.  GCP doesn't have a Nitro competitor, but they
            offer Tensor Processing Units (TPUs).  TPUs are more of a
            competitor to nVidia chips, but they are still custom silicon in
            the sense of the GP comment.
            GCP, AWS, and Azure seem to all be diverging in their
            specialization.  GCP is focusing more on AI/ML/Big Data offerings
            while AWS is more security-aware, and Azure is more hybrid-cloud
              robertlagrant wrote 3 days ago:
              GCP feels the most R&Dish, with the K8s and ML innovations. AWS
              seems to just be pushing on every front very well. Azure feels as
              though it's catching up, but a bit more sales led/engineering
              later than the others.
            roland35 wrote 4 days ago:
            Here is an article about Azure at least: [1] “Because silicon is
            a foundational building block for technology, we’re continuing to
            invest in our own capabilities in areas like design, manufacturing
            and tools, while also fostering and strengthening partnerships with
            a wide range of chip providers,” says Microsoft’s
            communications chief Frank Shaw.
   URI      [1]: https://www.theverge.com/2020/12/18/22189450/microsoft-arm...
          natchy wrote 4 days ago:
          > the only two logical outcomes are to either go bust, or to be
          acquired by a major cloud provider
          Or acquired by a chip maker, like Intel.
        pjfin123 wrote 4 days ago:
        Please add GPUs! Google cloud and AWS's interfaces are hard to use. I
        recently discovered vast.ai which is great but cheap DO GPUs would be
        more trusted/professional (even if they only had one option).
          trsohmers wrote 4 days ago:
          (Shameless self promotion): Check out Lambda's GPU cloud:
   URI    [1]: https://lambdalabs.com/service/gpu-cloud
            lvs wrote 4 days ago:
            Are you planning to have an option that is CPU heavy with 1xGPU for
            CPU-bound loads? Like a g4ad, g4dn type of configuration?
        dartf wrote 4 days ago:
        I really want to love DO, but I just can't. 2 main pain points I had
        from working with it for ~3 month:
        1. Spaces keys. There is no way to fine tune access rights. Anyone with
        spaces key can access any space in the organization and read/write to
        it. I trust people I work with, but there is always room for a mistake,
        so even a small chance that someone can accidentally nuke our
        production space makes me nervous.
        2. Something from yesterday: we use new DO apps to deploy a static web
        app. Yesterday I started to get random 404s for some of the assets, so
        app become unusable. My colleague in Argentina had same issues, but for
        different assets. We are lucky that it was a staging app, but imagine
        it was a production app and that would happen over the weekend? How do
        you even detect that? Run uptime monitor form dozen different
          Sebguer wrote 3 days ago:
          Completely unrelated to DO, but for 2, yes? You should absolutely do
          something like that if an app needs to be accessible worldwide. There
          are many reasons an app might become unavailable for different parts
          of the world, especially if you're reliant on a CDN since POPs can
          fail or become unavailable in weird and silent ways. Something like
          Thousandeyes is good for this.
        ivraatiems wrote 4 days ago:
        I might have mentioned this before, but DigitalOcean's support is (or
        was, before I stopped being their customer) absolutely abysmal.
        I had a default card set up for auto billing. That card expired. I went
        to remove the default card -- you cannot remove a default card. Okay. I
        added a new card and tried to set it as default. It didn't take.
        (Refreshing the browser reverted the change.)
        So I tried another browser, another computer, etc. The change never
        took. Finally, I contacted their support. It took a ton of back and
        forth with people who had dubious language comprehension before I
        finally convinced them anything other than user error was going on...
        but then, instead of fixing it, they demanded I take a video and upload
        it for them to prove it was real!
        I did, and I paid the invoice manually. The bug was eventually fixed
        after a month or two, but it was a pain until that happened.
        I found another provider who is cheaper for the resources I need and
        has better customer service by miles. If I can't get you to even take
        my money in an easy and reliable way, I can't trust you to operate
        anything I rely on.
          nerdbaggy wrote 3 days ago:
          Had the same problem, and switched to Linode, much better support.
          They recently won some support award, not sure if it actually means
   URI    [1]: https://www.linode.com/blog/linode/linode-wins-5-stevie-awar...
          sethammons wrote 3 days ago:
          My support issue was that I had a dead box and needed it to be
          available again. Their system thought it was up, but I could not
          reach it. There was no live support, just submit a ticket and pray.
          They need real-time support. I’m fine paying for it. Hell, bill me
          per minute, but I needed eyes in the issue. Instead of waiting for
          some unknown time for a support response, I deleted my stuff and
          rebuilt everything. If this were backing a commercial offering of
          mine, this would be unacceptable.
            stjohnswarts wrote 3 days ago:
            This may be a dumb question but why would you put anything on a
            server at DO that you need 5 nines out of? DO is all about the
            price and mediocre tools and machine that you get for it. I use it
            for personal/fun stuff but I'd never put my business on it.
              sethammons wrote 3 days ago:
              Sure, you probably don't want to run your business on it; we
              agree. I think it is a missing opportunity for DO to allow
              growing smaller projects to continue to stay on their platform.
          wakatime wrote 4 days ago:
          Maybe they have support tiers? Every time I created a support ticket
          I got a response within an hour from a technical person. Their
          support responds much faster than AWS in my experiences.
            ivraatiems wrote 3 days ago:
            The responses were fast. They were just also nonsensical.
          mattnewton wrote 4 days ago:
          A small personal project of mine was flagged as compromised or
          something and taken down. Support couldn’t tell me why, I suspect
          it had something to do with updating regularly through git? To this
          day I’ll never know though, moved it to an aws ec2 instance.
          oliverjudge wrote 4 days ago:
          Out of curiosity where did you move to?
            unethical_ban wrote 3 days ago:
            I use Vultr FWIW, I got $50 in credit way back when, and they're
            stable, and their support was responsive, if a bit unhelpful,
            regarding a firewall issue.
            ivraatiems wrote 3 days ago:
            I moved to BuyVM, [1] . I had already been using their services for
            a few years, I just expanded on what I already had.
            They are not as large an enterprise as DigitalOcean, by a long
            shot, but the upside of that is you can speak with the owner and
            his small staff personally and get personal service. They made me a
            very good deal.
            I also know from their Discord that they have some conservative
            political leanings, so if that's a thing that matters to you either
            way, it's there. I don't find it to be represented in their
            behavior towards customers or who they choose to host, so it was
            acceptable to me even though I feel differently.
   URI      [1]: https://buyvm.net/
              dannyw wrote 3 days ago:
              +1 to BuyVM. Happy customer for multiple years.
              They are really the perfect size for me: big enough for multiple
              locations, R&D, and support coverage; but small enough so that
              you personally interact with the team, and you have trust that a
              random DMCA isn't going to end up with your site nuked.
              The privacy-first stance (including allowing Tor exit nodes!
              sorely needed on independent infra!), and general willingness to
              help you ad-hoc (e.g. you wanna announce your own IP range?
              they'll do it, charge you a fair price for the work).
              On the other hand, I woke up one day with my DigitalOcean droplet
              suspended and account banned, and support absolutely refuses to
              tell me why. My only suspicion is perhaps because I used the
              GitHub Student Pack even after I was no longer a student.
              frakkingcylons wrote 3 days ago:
              It blows my mind that people will hang out in a Discord for a VPS
              provider and express their political opinions. Communities form
              around anything nowadays.
                dannyw wrote 3 days ago:
                BuyVM is more or less a free speech host: if it's legal,
                they'll (usually) host it.
                It's my view that we need this on the internet.
                  frakkingcylons wrote 3 days ago:
                  I'm not for or against BuyVM. I'm just surprised that
                  nowadays people will hang out in a VPS provider's Discord.
                  Like if Wawa had a Discord and people decided to hang out
                  there. I just don't get it.
                    ivraatiems wrote 3 days ago:
                    I think people would totally do that for Wawa. I know some
                    people who are crazy into the whole Wawa vs Sheetz debate.
                    There's a whole community around "low-end" VPS and server
                    hosting, and BuyVM's staff have historically been active
                    figures in that community. The Discord is an offshoot of
                    that. It's not all that unusual; a lot of companies do
                    community outreach by running communities for people who do
                    things related to their services. Digital Ocean themselves
                    do this in another form with their documentation libraries.
                    BuyVM's brand relies on the perception that they are
                    laid-back, pro-free-speech, friendly, and helpful. The
                    Discord is a way of broadcasting that. Now, personally - I
                    think that attracts some people I wouldn't prefer to
                    attract. But I know they've drawn lines in the past
                    (banning overtly anti-Semitic people, for instance), so,
                    fair enough. Their pro-speech attitude helped me when a
                    site I ran was subjected to bogus legal threats from an
                    unhinged former user.
              voltagex_ wrote 3 days ago:
              BuyVM's wiki has things in it like [1] , which, without any
              numbers behind it would make me extremely uneasy to use the
              service. Other cheap hosts just put hard IO limits at the VM host
   URI        [1]: https://wiki.buyvm.net/doku.php/kvm#pagefileswap_disclai...
                dannyw wrote 3 days ago:
                BuyVM is a team run by humans who do care about every customer.
                As long as you're doing something malicious-y (like crypto
                mining, exploit testing random websites, distributing malware
                or a phishing site, etc), they will work with you.
                  kchr wrote 3 days ago:
                  > As long as you're doing something malicious-y (like crypto
                  mining, exploit testing random websites, distributing malware
                  or a phishing site, etc), they will work with you.
                  Is this an extension of the Russian Business Network, or did
                  you miss a negation in there? :-)
              robertlagrant wrote 3 days ago:
              Not treating people differently based on their beliefs sounds
              like someone with leanings on either side, rather than extremists
              on either side.
                ivraatiems wrote 3 days ago:
                Yeah. There are definitely people on their Discord I'd call
                extreme, but none of those people work for or speak for the
                company. They aren't people I would choose to associate with,
                but it's a free country.
                I thought about it quite a bit, actually. But there is a line
                there and they haven't crossed it.
        erwinh wrote 4 days ago:
        been a fan of DigitalOcean for years. Somehow they were able to bring a
        focus on usability to cloud offerings like no other provider could.
        Most recent thing that made my life 100x easier is their Apps platform
        with direct Github integrations for deployment of react apps removing
        any need to learn CI/CD stuff which I dont want to waste time on in
        early alpha startup phase :)
        f430 wrote 4 days ago:
        when will DigitalOCean IPO?
        stephenSinniah wrote 4 days ago:
        From the risk factors summary:
        Implications of Being an Emerging Growth Company
        We are an “emerging growth company” as defined in the Jumpstart Our
        Business Startups Act of 2012, or the JOBS Act. We may take advantage
        of certain exemptions from various public company reporting
        requirements, including not being required to have our internal
        controls over financial reporting audited by our independent registered
        public accounting firm under Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
        2002, or the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, reduced disclosure obligations
        regarding executive compensation in our periodic reports and proxy
        statements and exemptions from the requirements of holding a
        non-binding advisory vote on executive compensation and any golden
        parachute payments. We may take advantage of these exemptions for up to
        five years or until we are no longer an emerging growth company,
        whichever is earlier. In addition, the JOBS Act provides that an
        “emerging growth company” can delay adopting new or revised
        accounting standards until those standards apply to private companies.
        We have elected to take advantage of certain of the reduced disclosure
        obligations in the registration statement of which this prospectus is a
        part and may elect to take advantage of other reduced reporting
        requirements in future filings. As a result, the information that we
        provide to our stockholders may be different than you might receive
        from other public reporting companies in which you hold equity
        Wow, I didn't know about this. Shouldn't financial reporting always be
          calderarrow wrote 4 days ago:
          CPA here.
          The short answer is theoretically, yes, but in practice, it's not
          always practical to have transparent financial reporting.
          For context, financial reporting is a tradeoff between cost and
          effectiveness. Whenever you're reading audited financial statements,
          you're reading an accounting professional's opinion which would be
          reasonable given a certain level of constraints. In theory, auditors
          could audit every facet of an organization and obtain 99.99%
          assurance, but the financial cost of doing so typically doesn't make
          sense for the company nor shareholders.
          Of the reduced disclosures, the most significant is not having their
          internal controls audited. For a big company, this is a red flag
          because the financial accounts are only reasonable if you also have
          reasonable assurance that there are controls in place to prevent
          fraud and that they're working effectively.
          But for smaller companies where most of the ownership is usually
          owned by founder-workers, employees, or early investors who are
          monitoring it on the ground level, there aren't many benefits from
          increased reporting over internal controls because if they are
          committing fraud, they'd mostly be defrauding themselves! That,
          combined with the fact that most early stage companies are already
          resource-constrained, makes regulators a bit more lenient because
          they assume investors/employees know what they're getting themselves
          Now, when a company decides to go public, they need some time to
          adopt best practices and comply with broader regulations. That takes
          time, so regulators give them a few years to get the personnel and
          processes in place without penalizing them. But to cover their bases,
          they're required to make disclosures like above, so that early
          investors buying into the IPO know that they won't have similar
          levels of assurance about the financials for a few years.
            stephenSinniah wrote 4 days ago:
            Very interesting, thank you for the insight.
          gen220 wrote 4 days ago:
          From your snippet:
          > We may take advantage of these exemptions for up to five years or
          until we are no longer an emerging growth company, whichever is
          The definition of "emerging growth company", from [1] > A company
          qualifies as an emerging growth company if it has total annual gross
          revenues of less than $1.07 billion during its most recently
          completed fiscal year and, as of December 8, 2011, had not sold
          common equity securities under a registration statement. A company
          continues to be an emerging growth company for the first five fiscal
          years after it completes an IPO, unless one of the following occurs:
          > - its total annual gross revenues are $1.07 billion or more
          > - it has issued more than $1 billion in non-convertible debt in the
          past three years or
          > - it becomes a “large accelerated filer,” as defined in
          Exchange Act Rule 12b-2
          2020's gross revenue was 318m growing at 50-60m yoy from prior years.
          So, unless that growth is somehow compounding, the 5 years post-IPO
          is the most likely outcome.
          The biggest implications are relaxed requirements around explaining
          executive compensation, and that financial control auditing
          (SOX-compliance) is not required.
          It's not necessarily a bad thing for investors, but a trade-off. It
          means the company can focus more on growth and less elsewhere.
   URI    [1]: https://www.sec.gov/smallbusiness/goingpublic/EGC
          paws wrote 4 days ago:
          Huh, that's a bit surprising. Can anyone point to examples of what
          kinds of disclosure obligations are reduced? e.g. liquidation
        jtdev wrote 4 days ago:
        I was really considering moving from AWS to DO until I noticed this:
        [1] So anyone who's offended by content you might host on DO can report
        your site and some identity politics obsessed bureauocrat decides if
        you're cancelled or not...? The public cloud has turned into an
        Orwellian nightmare.
   URI  [1]: https://www.digitalocean.com/company/contact/#abuse
          Sebguer wrote 3 days ago:
          Are you mad about abuse@ emails on Whois lookups, too?
            jtdev wrote 3 days ago:
            Those haven’t been used by the cancel culture mobs, so no. It
            seems that the WHOIS abuse process is unbiased and not rife with
            conflicts of interest.
              Sebguer wrote 2 days ago:
              Wow, you have metrics on how all of the WHOIS abuse process is
              used? That's impressive!
          riffic wrote 3 days ago:
          you do realize that the folks upstream to DigitalOcean, meaning the
          ISP and data centers, have their own AUP that DigitalOcean is
          required to meet in order to be their customer?
          Every ISP has an abuse process, this isn't very unique here.
          berniemadoff69 wrote 3 days ago:
          If you are worried about 'offending people', moving away from AWS
          sounds like a good idea. AWS's 'Acceptable Use Policy' [0] states:
          You may not use [...] the Services 
           [...] to [...] display [...] content that is [...] offensive.
          However, moving to D.O. is a bad idea, because they have virtually
          the same policies. They can pull the plug if they want to, because
          it's their service.
   URI    [1]: https://aws.amazon.com/aup/
          1f60c wrote 3 days ago:
          From your link:
          > Report abuse:
          > - DMCA Takedown
          > - Trademark Infringement
          > - Spam
          > - Phishing
          > - Malware
          > - Botnet
          > - Intrusion/exploit attempts (Bruteforce, Scans etc)
          > - Child Abuse
          > - Violent Threats and Harassment
          > - Other
          That seems like a reasonable list of stuff I wouldn't want to have my
          platform be used for, either. Though, one might reasonably take issue
          with that "Other" category, but note that--at least in the US--web
          hosts cannot be forced to host any content they don't want to.
            jtdev wrote 3 days ago:
            I think you’re downplaying the “Other” category, which
            literally gives DO carte blanche in cancelling those they don’t
            approve of, or worse who the mob pressures DO to cancel.
            Do you not see how problematic this is? I agree with all of the
            other categories wholeheartedly, but even then, application of the
            policies of these organizations should be uniform, i.e., if both
            right wing and left wing websites publishes “Violent Threats and
            Harrassment”, both should be taken down. That’s not what
            we’re seeing in practice from the major cloud providers.
              1f60c wrote 3 days ago:
              > Do you not see how problematic this is?
              Their platform, their rules.
                jtdev wrote 3 days ago:
                “Their platform” has become the public square. If you think
                allowing unfettered control of such a utility by a small number
                of mega corporations - with political biases that change to
                suit their bottom line - is a good thing then I’m not sure
                we’re on the same page, in the same book, on the same planet.
                  timdev2 wrote 3 days ago:
                  These companies, and the systems and platforms they own, have
                  not become "the public square" any more than a widely read
                  newspaper, or the only Kinkos in town have. Nor are they
                  You're using words and phrases with significant legal
                  implications to characterize things that don't meet the
                  well-understood legal definitions.
                  I don't think you're being dishonest, but I fear you've been
                  bamboozled by the dishonest arguments of others, and are now
                  parroting them.
                  I may not like the decisions made by private companies, but
                  private companies doing things I don't like w/r/t hosting
                  speech is preferable to getting state power involved.
                  I don't like Nazi's marching in Skokie. And I don't like what
                  the right insists of calling "cancel culture". But both of
                  those things are constitutionally protected for good reason,
                  and those rights are worth defending.
                    jtdev wrote 3 days ago:
                    Section 230 is woefully naive and written for a bygone era.
                    Censorship of speech by a small group of kleptocrat mega
                    corporations on the greatest communication medium ever
                    known to mankind is antithetical to everything America
                    stands for.
                      timdev2 wrote 3 days ago:
                      Have you considered that your problem is not with Section
                      230, but with the First Amendment?
                        jtdev wrote 3 days ago:
                        Yes, I have considered that. But, no, that’s not my
                        “problem”; I understand that this is not covered by
                        the constitution. I believe that Section 230 should be
                        updated and the clearly vague “otherwise
                        objectionable” language should be removed in favor of
                        specific language regarding where, when, and why
                        content can be taken down, i.e., only when that content
                        is unlawful.
                        I understand that some are still basking in electoral
                        victories that were without question aided by the
                        ambiguity in Section 230; this euphoria shouldn’t be
                        confused with righteousness.
                          timdev2 wrote 3 days ago:
                          Imagine a world where Section 230 doesn't exist. A
                          mean corporation takes down your post, or bans you.
                          What cause of action do you imagine you'd have that
                          wouldn't be barred by 1A?
                          By and large, 230 acts merely as a procedural
                          fast-last to dismiss suits earlier than they'd
                          otherwise be. But they'd ultimately be decided the
                          same way on first amendment grounds.
                            jtdev wrote 3 days ago:
                            You’re presenting a false dichotomy...
                            230 needs to be updated, not thrown out; 230
                            clearly has important aspects that must remain, and
                            other aspects that are clearly being abused by big
                              timdev2 wrote 3 days ago:
                              Okay, let's just strike the "otherwise
                              objectionable" at the end of (c)(2)(A):
                              What cause of action do you imagine you'd have
                              that wouldn't be barred by 1A?
                                jtdev wrote 2 days ago:
                                That depends. Are these organizations acting in
                                “good faith”?
                                  timdev2 wrote 2 days ago:
                                  I'm asking you for a hypothetical - they can
                                  be acting with as much or as little "good
                                  faith" as you like.
                                    jtdev wrote 1 day ago:
                                    Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co. was
                                    in my mind and many others greatly
                                    preferred to the current mess we see caused
                                    by 230.
                                    Please tell me how your 1A hypothetical
                                    works out. Genuinely interested in hearing
                                    how you think 1A and SCOTUS will support
                                    your side of this argument.
                                      timdev2 wrote 22 hours 32 min ago:
                                      Stratton Oakmont v Prodigy Services is
                                      only tenuously related to your gripe
                                      about websites removing content. Stratton
                                      didn't sue Prodigy for taking down posts
                                      by Stratton. They sued Prodigy for not
                                      taking down allegedly defamatory posts by
                                      I asked you to provide a cause of action
                                      for "censorship" by a web site. SOvP
                                      isn't that. A more recent, federal, and
                                      better-fitting case would be PragerU vs.
                                      YouTube. There, PragerU sued over their
                                      content being remove/restricted. They
                                      lost on 230 grounds. But even without
                                      230, they almost certainly would have
                                      lost on 1A grounds, because YouTube's
                                      exercise of editorial discretion about
                                      what content they host is clearly 1A
                                      protected activity.
                                      Going back to Stratton Oakmont for a
                                      moment: I understand the argument that,
                                      absent the liability shield in 230,
                                      content moderation of
                                      less-than-clearly-illegal content would
                                      be vanishingly rare. Web sites would seek
                                      to avoid potential liability by getting
                                      out of the content-moderation business,
                                      which would fix your issue. I'm not
                                      convinced that would actually be the
                                      outcome. Even if it were, I wouldn't
                                      enjoy every web site devolving into
                                        jtdev wrote 21 hours 9 min ago:
                                        ...and there we have it. If you want to
                                        selectively censor lawful content, you
                                        should be treated as a publisher.
                                          timdev2 wrote 20 hours 9 min ago:
                                          Okay. But when Twitter or whoever
                                          takes your post down, how does
                                          treating them "as a publisher" help
                                          you? It doesn't. They have a 1st
                                          Amendment right to do that.
                                            jtdev wrote 17 hours 32 min ago:
                                            Why wasn’t Stratton Oakmont v
                                            Prodigy Services overturned on 1A
                                            “... if they are neutral
                                            platforms, they should have
                                            immunity from litigation. If they
                                            are publishers making editorial
                                            choices, then they should
                                            relinquish this valuable exemption.
                                            They can’t claim that Section 230
                                            immunity is necessary to protect
                                            free speech, while they shape,
                                            control, and censor the speech on
                                            their platforms. Either the courts
                                            or Congress should clarify the
   URI                                      [1]: https://www.city-journal.o...
                                              timdev2 wrote 20 min ago:
                                              The practical reason it wasn't
                                              overturned is that it wasn't
                                              appealed (IIRC, they reached a
                                              settlement). Had there been an
                                              appeal, it's possible the court
                                              would have recognized that
                                              exercising some editorial control
                                              over third-party content doesn't
                                              make you into a newspaper-like
                                              publisher. They might have set
                                              the bar some place like "actual
                                              knowledge of the content,
                                              pre-publication".  That might
                                              have created a precedent where
                                              there was something resembling
                                              distributor liability - where a
                                              platform wouldn't be liable
                                              unless they were put on notice
                                              and failed to take down
                                              defamatory speech.
                                              That would still be a problem
                                              (because it would allow companies
                                              to censor critics, even if the
                                              criticism wasn't actually
                                              defamatory), but at least we
                                              wouldn't have incoherent
                                              arguments about a non-existent
                                              publisher/platform dichotomy.
                                              That city-journal piece is pretty
                                              awful. For instance, regarding
                                              the bit you quoted, they
                                              absolutely can claim that 230
                                              protects free speech. Private
                                              censorship on private property is
                                              free speech.
                                              Congress almost certainly can't
                                              pass a law that outlaws viewpoint
                                              discrimination for web sites that
                                              would survive 1A scrutiny.
                                              Fiddling with defamation
                                              liability to get around the
                                              constitution might work, but just
                                              because you can doesn't mean you
        hu3 wrote 4 days ago:
        edit: if you're going to downvote at least let me know why. I hold HN
        on high standards.
        DO is a fantastic value proposition.
        Reminds me when I was gathering cryptocurrency prices from exchanges
        and needed the lowest delay possible so an algorithm could protect me
        from pump-and-dumps.
        In my testings, a $5/month machine from Digital Ocean was the fastest
        to fetch prices from Bittrex. I got prices within 0.2 milliseconds
        (yes, under 1 millisecond). It was unbeliavable.
        The algo failed miserably ofc. Mostly because Exchanges price API tend
        to be unstable. Often giving stale or no data.
        aj_nikhil wrote 4 days ago:
        DO is a dream company. Build something like this.
        acremades wrote 4 days ago:
        Here is the podcast episode where Ben and Moisey Uretsky share how they
        built DigitalOcean. Worth a listen.
   URI  [1]: https://alejandrocremades.com/ben-and-moisey-uretsky-from-humb...
        api wrote 4 days ago:
        I find this really exciting, since DO has one of the only managed PGSQL
        + K8S combos that seems like it could compete with Google and AWS.
        Always nice to have more competition in this space. With IPO funding
        they can probably really compete. They'll probably have their own data
        centers soon.
        nickjj wrote 4 days ago:
        I've been using DO for around 6-7 years now. Really happy with the
        services overall. I hope nothing changes after IPO'ing.
        The only complaint I have with them is DO Spaces. This service seems to
        have issues related to degraded quality pretty often and there's so
        many horror stories of load times taking hundreds of milliseconds to
        serve content from their CDN if you Google around for folks using
        Spaces. I'm looking forward to the day where Spaces is as good as S3
        because DO's offering of Spaces includes not only an object store but a
        free CDN on top. Seems like a good deal for $5 bucks a month if it were
        It's weird because every other service I use by DO has been top notch.
          wakatime wrote 4 days ago:
          Yep, same experience with Spaces here. That's why we use Spaces for
          backups only, since it's very affordable and backups don't need
          millisecond latency.
   URI    [1]: https://wakatime.com/blog/46-latency-of-digitalocean-spaces-...
        babayega2 wrote 4 days ago:
        Thank you DO for offering hosting for us in Africa who need a reliable
        hosting and  fixed rates for the services so that we can plan ahead.
        Also the tutorials are a must have! Like today I used Django and DO
        Space and everything was smooth.
        breck wrote 4 days ago:
        Here are the problems I've had in my 7+ years as a DigitalOcean
        customer: .
        Those are the ones just off the top of my head.
        Love this company and it's made my life so much easier for the past
        near decade.
        Excited to see they are financially very healthy.
          firstfewshells wrote 4 days ago:
          They've accrued up losses of $43M, $40M and $35M in the 3 preceding
          years. Funny how that's considered financially healthy in the world
          we're living right now.
            imtringued wrote 2 days ago:
            Depends, what are they spending the money on? Are they wasting it
            on user acquisition or are they using it to build more datacenters?
            Are their losses projected to grow or are they staying the same
            while increasing revenue? Are customers actually using the service
            or are they just being lured in through loss leaders?
            One should probably create a personal checklist to see whether a
            company is doing well or not and then just make decisions based on
            the checklist.
            impulser_ wrote 3 days ago:
            The business is making money, they are just spending it growing the
            business. Most tech companies that are still in the growth stage
            will lose money because they have to spend a lot on R&D and keeping
            employees at the company with compensation. The tech industry is
            highly competitive and you have to spend a lot to stay competitive.
            mgfist wrote 3 days ago:
            Capital is cheap
            ttul wrote 4 days ago:
            So long as the investment into growth (sales and marketing) is paid
            back through the cashflow of customers during their lifetime, the
            losses are tolerable.
            A provider like DO expects to have customers for many years. At 50%
            gross margins, $100 spent to acquire a $50/yr customer will be
            returned in four years. That may be an acceptable trade off.
            aeturnum wrote 4 days ago:
            I think it's good to point this out and think a little about what
            "health" means here. Looking at their consolidated financial data
            on page 11, you can see they spend about $1 providing a service
            someone pays $2 for. Then all the rest of it gets eaten up by
            salary, r&d and marketing.
            It feels like a very different situation than, say, Uber - where
            there's a question about if Uber can balance driver payouts and
            customer fees in a way where they make money. DO, instead, is
            already turning $1 in goods into $2 in revenue and they're just
            looking to grow enough so that $1 in potential profit covers
            breck wrote 4 days ago:
            25% revenue growth past 2 years and losses have remained constant.
            If this wasn't hard tech, I would be worried, but this is hard
            capital intensive stuff and looks to me like they are doing fine.
            If in 10 years there ends up being 1 independent cloud company,
            that would be a pretty amazing business. DO has a good a shot as
            any (only thing I can think off is AWS spins out). DO is so good
            that there I can't think of a worst case scenario being anything
            other than one of the big 3 buys them. Best case is the moon.
          arcticfox wrote 4 days ago:
          That's pretty much me too. I briefly thought they had a major
          Kubernetes fail recently, but they immediately diagnosed the issue
          and got back to us...We'd shot ourselves in the foot. I love
          treesknees wrote 4 days ago:
          I ran into issues several years ago where the IP of my DigitalOcean
          droplet always seemed to be on block lists or banned for abuse from
          various services. As a result it made it impossible to use as a VPN
          server or mail server. The early ability to spin up and charge hourly
          rates made them good targets for spammers compared to companies like
          Linode, who at the time didn't have hourly rates.
          I have to imagine things have gotten better, but it did taint my view
          of DO as more of a dev playing field than a reliable hosting
            wwarren wrote 4 days ago:
            In my experience this is 100% the case with all IaaS providers.
            AWS's entire IP space is basically on all email block lists for
              indigodaddy wrote 3 days ago:
              I find this extremely hard to believe.
              EDIT: Just to clarify, AWS has a lot of IPs, over 100 million
              [1]. Let’s just speculate that 1/50th might be in an overall
              pool for customer allocation.  Do you really think the majority
              of 2M IPs would come back blacklisted in some form?  I haven’t
              dug in to this to actually see if this is the case, but it would
              seem laughable to even begin to think that this might be the
   URI        [1]: https://toonk.io/aws-and-their-billions-in-ipv4-addresse...
                LinuxBender wrote 3 days ago:
                I think the wording should be changed.    I would agree that all
                their EC2's and lightsail instances would be in the RBL/RSL's. 
                AWS have an email service specifically for this use case.
                  indigodaddy wrote 3 days ago:
                  I would be shocked if even that were true.  Well, looks like
                  I’ve got some homework for tonight.
                    LinuxBender wrote 3 days ago:
                    They come and go get listed and delisted so you may find
                    your own nodes to be hit and miss.  That is for the well
                    behaved RBL's and RSL's.  Spamcop, Spamhaus, Uceprotect
                    will expire nodes and networks after a period of no
                    reported spam.    There are a few others that will leave
                    things listed for a long time.    I am only basing my
                    experience on those three.  The less costly a VPS provider,
                    the more often they get listed.  Ramnode for example is
                    almost always blocked.    If you have long running nodes, it
                    is unlikely you will find them blocked outside of
                    Uceprotect level-2.
            cube00 wrote 4 days ago:
            It hasn't gotten better. I had to plead with a postmaster at a
            large ISP to unblock my droplet because they banned all DO's IPs
            after they were refusing to manage the way spammers were abusing
            the service. Not a "we're sending to spam" ban but a hard 550
            connection refused. The postmaster suggested I do some Googling on
            the topic and I was shocked at what I found, so I can see why they
            had to throw their hands up and block the lot.
            I appreciate it's not easy problem but it's clear the community
            felt they were being ignored and DigitalOcean did nothing to try
            and limit the spread. For example, moving to a model like other
            providers have where you need to request permission to send mail
            from support.
            A selection over two years: [1] [2]
   URI      [1]: https://www.digitalocean.com/community/questions/when-will...
   URI      [2]: https://www.digitalocean.com/community/questions/stop-the-...
   URI      [3]: https://www.digitalocean.com/community/questions/how-serio...
          wrycoder wrote 4 days ago:
          The only issue I've ever had is the login auth email can take 20
          minutes to arrive at fastmail.    This seems to have gotten better
          What a great service!!
        daywednes wrote 4 days ago:
        what's their IPO valuation?
        cube00 wrote 4 days ago:
        They lost me after I couldn't switch from CentOS unless I also agreed
        to lose my IP address. Reached out to support and got the unhelpful
        reply of "use another OS version within the CentOS family" which didn't
        really help considering CentOS was charging its direction.
          riffic wrote 4 days ago:
          droplets are cattle, not pets.
          covidthrow wrote 4 days ago:
          They have "floating IP addresses" as droplet-agnostic IPs for exactly
          this purpose.
            cube00 wrote 4 days ago:
            A floating IP address couldn't be used in my case because I needed
            a reverse DNS entry and "Floating IPs do not support PTR (rDNS)
            Along with other limitations such as "we do not support IPv6
            floating IPs. All floating IPs are IPv4" and "floating IPs do not
            support SMTP traffic"
   URI      [1]: https://www.digitalocean.com/docs/networking/floating-ips/
              coder543 wrote 4 days ago:
              When would rDNS actually be useful?
              It's probably a failure of imagination on my part that I can't
              think of a use case where I would want that.
              Why not just use normal, forward DNS?
                Denvercoder9 wrote 4 days ago:
                Having functioning and accurate reverse-DNS is required for
                mail servers, as lots of mailservers reject mail from servers
                without correct reverse DNS. There's likely other protocols
                where having functioning reverse DNS is a necessity or strongly
                advantageous as well.
                cube00 wrote 4 days ago:
                It's a requirement to send mail to some servers.
                "Set up valid reverse DNS records of your IP addresses that
                point to your domain."
   URI          [1]: https://support.google.com/mail/answer/81126
          dubcanada wrote 4 days ago:
          You lost me there, their CentOS products are in a separate area then
          the rest of the OS's?
          Couldn't you just reformat with what ever OS you want?
            cube00 wrote 4 days ago:
            "You can use any image in your account that runs an OS that is in
            the same family as the Droplet you're rebuilding" [1] I thought
            support could help me out given the CentOS situation and it being a
            special case but they weren't even aware of what was happening or
            that users would need to move off despite my explanation in the
            ticket.  Hopefully it's better now it's more widely known.
   URI      [1]: https://www.digitalocean.com/docs/droplets/how-to/rebuild/
              riffic wrote 4 days ago:
              > runs an OS that is in the same family as the Droplet you're
              This line in the documentation might be misleading. Unless you
              have a very old legacy droplet that uses HV-assigned kernels, you
              should be able to reimage your droplet and use another OS.
        neom wrote 4 days ago:
        Interestingly it was very clear at around $10MM ARR that DO was on a
        trajectory to IPO. You can thank Moisey Uretsky for a fantastic product
        idea and his brother Ben for CEOing it for so long. Congratulations to
        everyone who was involved in building DigitalOcean, it was an
        INCREDIBLY wild ride in the early days, lots of chaos but through all
        the chaos and disfunction, I think everyone involved knew this day
        would come.
        Personally I'm really proud of the work we did, and I'm overjoyed to
        have been part of building a business that is going to be a public
        company.  Thanks to the HN community for being so supportive over the
          stjohnswarts wrote 3 days ago:
          I actually prefer that companies stay private so they can have more
          control over their long term outlook rather than slowly moving to
          quarterly profits and quarterly thinking mindset that haunts most of
          the industry tech and otherwise. It was great while it lasted, and I
          guess those early guys are going to make a killing on the options.
          Congrats to them. Nothing lasts forever.
          ivanvanderbyl wrote 3 days ago:
          The best year of my career was at DO in 2014/15. We were growing like
          a weed. It was hard to appreciate the magnitude of the growth until I
          compared it to everywhere I've worked since.
          It was a heck of a lot of fun. Thanks for bringing me on board.
          nodesocket wrote 3 days ago:
          As somebody who followed SliceHost (Jason Seats and Matt Tanase) the
          predecessor to DigitalOcean, I 100% knew that DigitalOcean was on a
          trajectory to exit/IPO and be huge early on. Bravo, and
          congratulations to the entire team.
          I was also building a startup piggybacking on hosting providers
          around 2012 and 2013 and saw the explosive growth. DigitalOcean
          should be the go-to case study on how to build a developer oriented
          company. Just like SliceHost and PickledOnion before; the technical
          guides on setting up LAMP stacks, Wordpress, NGINX, Node.js become
          resources just as important as Stackoverflow and Serverfault. DO
          showed up first in Google search results for technical questions.
          kevinoconnor7 wrote 4 days ago:
          I remember interviewing with DO back in late 2014 and it was nuts!
          The entire interview process took ~3 months and it was clear that
          they were defining the process as they went. The entire process was
            1. initial call with recruiter
            2. homework project
            3. call with engineer to discuss said homework project
            4. two phone screens with engineers
            5. onsite interview with 6 engineers
          Finally I had was at the final step which was a call with Ben who was
          really interesting to talking to as we shared the sysadmin
          They we going through some pretty crazy growth at the time so I
          forgave a lot of disorganization in the interview process.
          Unfortunately I didn't end up getting the role but I'm glad to have
          had that experience; it was definitely an interesting point in
          DigitalOcean's history.
            cobaltoxide wrote 3 days ago:
            That interview process sounds completely standard.
              kevinoconnor7 wrote 3 days ago:
              Overall I don't think the total amount was excessive, or maybe
              just slightly. My experience has always been been technical phone
              screen or homework problem before onsite, but not both.
              The real issue was how chaotic the process was. I had started out
              talking to an engineer that had picked up my application, but was
              handed off to recruiter only after the homework portion was done
              (said recruiter even mentioned that they had just been hired).
              The two technical phone screens also were two discrete steps
              (i.e. the second was only scheduled after the success of the
              That was really the issue: neither I nor them knew how many more
              steps there were. It wasn't helped by having long periods of
              radio silence between each step either. But it was painfully
              obvious that they were scrambling to figure out how to scale
              their processes, so much so that it still stands out to me 6+
              years later.
                aerosmile wrote 3 days ago:
                As a sysadmin, you probably have a number of areas of
                responsibility. Imagine a time in your career when you had the
                least amount of sleep, and still tried your hardest to keep
                everything together. Then you meet someone who gives you the
                feedback that they enjoyed talking to you, but they noticed
                that one of those areas is not quite as buttoned up as it
                should be. Presumably you take that feedback to heart and fix
                it as quickly as the circumstances allow. 6+ years later, that
                person goes on HN and takes you through the dirt. Would that
                seem reasonable to you?
                  kevinoconnor7 wrote 3 days ago:
                  Thanks for calling this out: you're right. I don't think I
                  highlighted properly what I actually wanted to highlight.
                  I more wanted to emphasize my view as a bystander at a very
                  hectic point of their growth, not actually complain about the
                  experience. It was an interesting experience to me, not a
                  negative one.
                  I have no hard feelings about it and I'm sure things got
                  sorted out. I certainly have no negative views of any
                  individual I dealt with.
                  dilyevsky wrote 3 days ago:
                  The feedback is completely reasonable. No chance you’re
                  going to hire someone decent today if your interview process
                  for IC roles takes 3 months!
            mamurphy wrote 3 days ago:
            I was bored so I clicked on the key proof in your profile and it
            says it's been revoked.
              kevinoconnor7 wrote 3 days ago:
              oops! I rotated my private key a couple years back and never
              updated that. Fixed!
            Ansil849 wrote 3 days ago:
            Not to hijack this sub-thread, but just a general question: how
            does one deal with unethical 'homework projects'? I've had a case
            during an application where I was given a 'homework project' that
            seemed to me very much not like a theoretical scenario, but more
            like the company wanting me to do free work for an actual
            real-world issue they had. Have people had situations where you
            suspected the same? How do you deal with it?
              srcreigh wrote 3 days ago:
              Ubiq (YC company) interviewed me with an 8 hour assignment that
              had ridiculously challenging requirements. It was very fun
              because there was no way any normal human could do it in 8
              hours... but how far could I get? And they paid me for 8 hours
              working on it.
              I felt this was good. I got paid and it was a fun challenge. It
              also obviously wasn't "actual work," but even if it was, I was
              getting paid, so why not?
              I don't think it would have been out of the question to say I was
              too busy to dedicate 8 hours either, but in my case I had the
              Overall it was an excellent experience.
              Beefin wrote 3 days ago:
              I will only ever commit to a homework assignment if the
              employers' commitment level is on par. 
              For example, if they want me to do a homework assignment before
              meeting the hiring manager, no way. In other words, the
              assignment CANNOT be the first gate otherwise companies will just
              spray and pray then find the most desperate candidates.
              stjohnswarts wrote 3 days ago:
              I just don't do them and move on to the next company. I've never
              had an issue landing my next gig. I'll do all day multi round
              interviews and white board questions. I'm not doing your work or
              taking a college exam again. Good luck and godspeed is all I can
              tell them.
              usr1106 wrote 3 days ago:
              I had to solve a real world problem for my current employer in my
              assignment. However, when they usually say it takes 20% to make a
              nice demo and 80% to make a the demo production-ready, I'd say
              the distribution for my assignment was even more uneven. It's
              just a PoC, a toy, nothing that can really be used. I did not
              know the tools used, the coding style or anything  when I coded
              the assignment.
              I see nothing unethical in it.
              3 years later the feature has still not made it to production. I
              hate that every time it would have made my working day easier :)
              tedk-42 wrote 3 days ago:
              It's actually a good idea to pick a JIRA/project ticket from your
               backlog and see how the new engineer tries to solve the problem.
              It's good because it will determine if they're a good fit for the
              team and gauge how much they have to offer.
              SMAAART wrote 3 days ago:
              It's pretty simple:  the interviewing process goes both ways. 
              The company interviews the candidate, the candidate interviews
              the company.
              If you feel that a request is unethical and it's not what you
              want in a company, well... you - as a candidate - can terminate
              the interviewing process.
              pc86 wrote 3 days ago:
              We don't use homework projects at my current job (I don't care
              for them personally and thankfully have a bit of influence in the
              hiring process), but I've worked places that did. We always took
              real-world problems we had but had already solved. This has a
              couple benefits: a) we have full context around edge cases, bugs,
              historical stuff, etc. that the candidate doesn't; b) we can see
              pretty quickly when a candidate does something innovative we
              didn't think of and it's always lead to extremely good
              discussions in the interview; c) it's very similar to the work
              they'd be doing day-to-day, so if they have a lackluster resume
              and/or don't interview well, but shine on this, their odds of an
              offer skyrocket; d) the company gains nothing from the work so
              that settles most (but not all) of the ethical objections to it.
              dotBen wrote 3 days ago:
              Simple - you give candidates assignments you've designed solely
              for interviewing.  Ones that you clearly state up front are not
              real, not based around current project deliverables and commit
              that the code will ever be used in production.
              Then it's no different to the rest of the candidate's time spent
              interviewing - it's cost of doing business that no one expects to
              be remunerated for.
              The other benefit is that you then keep a benchmark of
              deliverables by having each candidate complete the same task (you
              have to change tasks over time as the details of the project get
              VintageLight wrote 3 days ago:
              Some people don't like whiteboarding or timed pair programming
              because it's not close to a real-work environment.
              Some people don't like take-homes that replicate
              scenarios/projects because they think it's too close to real work
              and want to be paid instead!
              There's no pleasing everyone with interviewing processes.
              kgc wrote 3 days ago:
              When I give homework projects, they are extracted from a previous
              part of the interview: What is a personal project that you’ve
              wanted to do but haven’t had time to do? Then I just ask them
              to do that. Win / win.
              jeffparsons wrote 3 days ago:
              My employer deals with this by compensating candidates for their
              time. Y'know... with money.
              We also don't give them our actual problems as homework tasks.
              We'll occasionally talk about our real problems with candidates
              in interviews, but we're very clear about it when we do.
              It's not a perfect system. Some candidates will choose to spend
              longer on the task so that in the follow-up interview they'll
              have the opportunity to talk about stuff that really shows off
              their strengths, so their effective hourly compensation for doing
              it would be quite low. The task is explicitly flexible like this,
              and we've also hired people who spent _half_ the par time on it
              (e.g. life circumstances making spare hours hard to come by) and
              didn't implement much at all, but then were able to confidently
              answer our questions about the bits they didn't actually
              Even if we were to only hire 1 out of every 15 people who get far
              enough through the pipeline to do the homework task (I don't
              recall the actual numbers) it costs us _nothing_ to compensate
              people for their time compared to, e.g., what it would cost us to
              make a bad hire. So it seems like an obvious thing to do even if
              only to stop candidates from having to wonder "am I getting
              screwed here?"
                stjohnswarts wrote 3 days ago:
                This seems reasonable. I've never been offered anything like
                that. It would be minimum $1000 a day.
                teeray wrote 3 days ago:
                One downside is that to do this properly, you probably should
                be sending out 1099s for all of those candidates. Depending on
                the number of open reqs out there, your payroll department may
                be less than thrilled with this idea. I’ve seen some teams
                that have tried to sidestep this by paying in gift cards, but
                that sure does seem to be playing with fire.
                  SkyPuncher wrote 3 days ago:
                  You are not required to file a 1099 if the payment is less
                  than $600. Even then, I can't imagine it's that hard to send
                  out an additional 1099 if needed.
   URI            [1]: https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self...
                kasey_junk wrote 3 days ago:
                Nearly every worker in the US is covered by an employment
                agreement that says they have to get pre-approval for
                moonlighting. It may or may not be legal in their jurisdiction
                but by paying people to do your interview process you
                potentially open them up to bad liabilities.
                That said it is completely unethical to make people do real
                work as part of an interview process. We collectively should
                name and shame any firm that does that.
                  nocman wrote 3 days ago:
                  "Nearly every worker in the US is covered by an employment
                  agreement that says they have to get pre-approval for
                  This is not true.
                  I've can think of one employer my entire career that had
                  conditions regarding work outside of my normal work hours.
                  Granted, if you worked for your competetors and they found
                  out about it you could be fired due to trade secrets or
                  conflicts of interest.    I only remember one employer I had
                  where I signed something with binding agreements related to
                  other work (and, as it happens, that was perhaps the worst
                  employer I ever had).
                  I know some employers in some regions do this, but it is a
                  far cry from affecting "nearly every worker in the US".  In
                  fact, I am not aware of any of my friends in tech positions
                  currently being under such an agreement (that is, an
                  agreement requiring pre-approval for outside work).  In fact
                  I believe it is illegal under many circumstances in some
                  states for an employer to require it (but don't rely on me
                  for that, conditions/laws change, and I have had no reason to
                  look into it recently).  I do remember discussions about it
                  in the not too distant past, however.
                    piva00 wrote 3 days ago:
                    I don't know about the US but anecdotally it's been
                    definitely the case for most of my work contracts in Brazil
                    and Sweden for the past 17 years, I believe that only 2-3
                    startups I worked for didn't have a clause about
                    moonlighting requiring pre-approval from management.
                    jldugger wrote 3 days ago:
                    It was definitely part of the agreement when I worked in
                    Univerisity IT, and part of the agreement when I accepted
                    an offer from a FAANG company.
                    The language you're looking for in the contract is
                    'preponderance of time'.
                  pacman2 wrote 3 days ago:
                  I did do analytical "sample" work for a company that took me
                  two weeks. They were thankful for the work but did not hire
                  me. I published it on my website and they were not very
                  Agilent is not great either. They interviewed me for 6 month
                  and implemented some of my ideas. (In fact, I got the job,
                  out of 500 applicants, but then they axed the job and hired
                codysan wrote 3 days ago:
                This is always, always the answer. It's not only the decent
                thing to do, it ensures you'll get an accurate representation
                of the quality of the prospective employee's work.
                dotBen wrote 3 days ago:
                Doesn't this discriminates against people who are on visas who
                can't accept remuneration from anyone other than their current
                employers..? They then either have to do the same project for
                free or decline to continue the interview process.
                  johannes1234321 wrote 3 days ago:
                  Not only visa, but also while employed one often can't simply
                  be paid by a "competitor" for similar work, that would break
                  the loyality to the current employer which is mandated by
                  contract law and general low.
                  smabie wrote 3 days ago:
                  or they can just take the money anyways and no one will know.
                  besides, you can accept a gift in btc
                  simlevesque wrote 3 days ago:
                  Paying someone for their work isn't discrimination. It never
                  The visa process may be flawed, but putting the blame on the
                  employer is... weird.
              jdavis703 wrote 3 days ago:
              This happened to me in am interview. It was my first software
              engineering job, so I was a junior. Wound up solving a problem
              one of the senior engineers had been struggling with for days.
              It’s probably what got me the job. Assuming the company is
              actually hiring for the role I think it’s perfectly fine to do
              this. It identifies people who can fill in gaps.
              temp667 wrote 3 days ago:
              We give new hires a homework project that is directly work
              related. We don't consider it unethical. It's really a fantastic
              way to sort out who can deliver. We used to have it be part of
              the onsite interview - they could sit for a few hours and do it.
              I like these because they are not games. If you want something
              done, you'd ask an employee to do it. So just ask someone to do
              something you need done.
              In our case at least by the time it was something that was part
              of an interview, it had already been implemented on the business
              side. Our projects were usually 2 hours tops?
              The idea that this is unethical is wild.
              We also do paid internships and have folks actually work on stuff
              that way -> do a good job, pretty good line up for a full time
                jimhi wrote 3 days ago:
                You are misunderstanding. They are saying it is unethical to
                ask an interviewee to code for free and use that in production.
                In your case you are not doing that, although if I interviewed
                with you and saw the same feature added after I submitted the
                code I would definitely assume you did something unethical.
                  temp667 wrote 3 days ago:
                  But is that what is happening? They said it was a work
                  related project. That's exactly what we do.
                  Why would a place like google even use an interviewees code
                  without careful copyright assignment and work for hire
                  protections (ie, you need to pay someone in USA generally to
                  own their code).
                  I've found some potential hires are randomly paranoid - and
                  if they start giving you lots of hypothetical disaster /
                  ripoff scenarios early, not worth the hire?
                    jimhi wrote 3 days ago:
                    Sometimes companies do illegal things that save them money.
                    I would assume Google wouldn't do that. Not every company
                    is Google.
                    A 6-person company in New York did that to me. I reviewed
                    the interview project I did for them and their latest
                    product update. I had to ask them a week after the
                    interview if they used my code in production and if so -
                    this is how many hours I worked on it and a fair rate. The
                    CEO emailed me threatening legal action and then called me
                    10 minutes later apologizing and venmo'd me the amount I
                    stated it was worth.
                    If your interview process works for you that is great.
                    But I could totally see why potential hires are paranoid if
                    you are giving them a situation to be paranoid about. I
                    hope you are being super clear with your process and giving
                    assurance you aren't using their code. If it was me, I
                    would show them the code our team wrote at the same time
                    they submit their project and use that as part of the
                    follow up interview.
              umvi wrote 3 days ago:
              If it were me I would be like: "here is proof I completed it and
              that it works, source code contingent on my being hired ;)"
                xedeon wrote 3 days ago:
                I like the way you think!
            gist wrote 3 days ago:
            > 2. homework project
            >  3. call with engineer to discuss said homework project
            How much time does it typically take (or should take) to complete a
            'homework' project?
            > 4. two phone screens with engineers
            >  5. onsite interview with 6 engineers
            This seems very 'camel is a horse by committee' to me.
            Reminds me a bit (know it's different) of dating where someone
            wants you to meet their family for approval.  I immediately pass on
            those dates (and will add I am happily married to a woman who did
            not do that).
            I wonder about situations where it takes so many inputs to make a
            decision to me that speaks a great deal about the decision making
            process being faulty.
            Fwiw when I graduated college years ago I was rejected by a company
            (friend of the family no less) who said they couldn't hire me
            because 'yes you are smart but you don't know this business' (true
            I knew zero).  So I started a company like theirs myself and now
            many years later they are gone and my company (which I sold) still
            survives. (Will add this was years before the internet and common
            practice for people who knew nothing to go into businesses they
            knew about).
            Now yes I do understand programming is not the same but my point
            still stands why so many chefs in the kitchen? Does anyone ever go
            back and track the people who were rejected what happened to them?
              AYBABTME wrote 3 days ago:
              Not long, perhaps 2h for the core and then some cleanup over a
              few hours as I cogit about it? This was my submission back in
   URI        [1]: https://github.com/aybabtme/crawler/commits/master
              mixmastamyk wrote 3 days ago:
              >  Does anyone ever go back and track the people who were
              rejected what happened to them?
              Almost never, in my experience.  Several times I came second in
              the running and never heard from them again.  Contacting them
              myself didn't work either.  Typical shop would rather look thru
              another hundred randos than revisit one decent candidate.
              kevinoconnor7 wrote 3 days ago:
              > How much time does it typically take (or should take) to
              complete a 'homework' project?
              I was still in college at the time but I maybe spent 5-10 hours
              over the course of a week or so. I do remember it took a very
              long time for them to respond after I had sent it in though. I
              believe the project was to implement a basic web crawler in Go.
              > Now yes I do understand programming is not the same but my
              point still stands why so many chefs in the kitchen?
              After the homework problem I think that's where they were
              defining the process as they went. They seemed to be growing
              quite a bit at the time (IIRC when I was onsite they had just
              rented two more floors of office space) and I had bounced between
              a few contacts that were brand new to the company. The real
              struggle is that I never knew how many more steps were to come,
              and I'm not sure they knew either.
              Though after the onsite they e-mailed me almost immediately to
              setup the call with Ben so I think everything had gone well up to
              that point. I don't think the call with Ben went poorly so my
              best guess is that they went with someone that had experience
              rather than a new grad.
              FWIW I'm not actually bitter about this. I just found it to be an
              interesting snapshot of a particularly chaotic point in the
              company's history.
          tgtweak wrote 4 days ago:
          I'm really happy to see Ben and Moisey get this far.  They are both
          extremely competent sysadmins and system architects too.
          They retained a lot of equity as well - good to see.
            sneak wrote 4 days ago:
            My experience is that not only did they start out as incompetent,
            they actively downplayed early security issues and outright lied
            about certain aspects of their products.
            I found major, glaring security/architecture issues with their main
            product early on, and was told by DO staff to go full-disclosure
            because it was working as designed. When I did so, DO lied about
            the impact on their blog.
            Those lies are still up: [1] > At no time was customer data
            "leaked" between accounts.
            (I have screenshots of other DO customers' data.) [2] Even their
            outage blog post from a few months ago is now deleted.
            My experience is that DO is a shady company, and I'll not do any
            serious/critical business with them or ever use them to store
            secret information.
            As for the lying, I'd personally never do business with any of the
            early DO management/founders.
            There's no amount of money that can be used to buy a reputation for
   URI      [1]: https://www.digitalocean.com/blog/transparency-regarding-d...
   URI      [2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6983097
              joering2 wrote 4 days ago:
              I second that. Over last 6 years I happened to login and see
              other people dashboard a few times. First time it happened hair
              raised up on my arms thinking someone else can see my stuff. I
              simply logout and logged back in. I never manage to delete or do
              any reckless stuff with other people servers. But I feel what the
              OP was going thru.
              yte15 wrote 4 days ago:
              Your issue was exactly, and I mean exactly, what I had in mind
              when I said “learning experiences” upthread. I followed it
              closely. Linode painfully learned the scrubbing lesson as well -
              and DO was in a worse position to learn it at the time, being
              forced to throw the scrub write load at SSDs that don’t like
              that type of load. That’s the real issue, honestly, that they
              probably started noticing SMART warnings from scrubbing by
              default on SSDs (particularly for cheap instances that turn over
              often), and took the venture capital approach of taping over it
              to make the next round by making it opt in.
              It’s a tough problem to deal with and not something you’re
              likely to think of designing such a product from first
              principles. That’s not an indictment, it’s just fundamental
              to experience gained doing this stuff (and it’s perilous to get
              wrong). Filtering unsolicited ARP to prevent domUs from hijacking
              default gateways was another lesson in blood, and one of the
              first things we tried within five minutes when we did competitive
              on DO around launch time (they hadn’t thought of it; it
                sneak wrote 4 days ago:
                It's not tough to solve.
                The whole scrub thing was a red herring: you don't need to
                scrub anything to not leak data, you just thin provision. It's
                (mostly) fine if customer data stays on your disks after they
                delete. It's not fine to give it to the next customer because
                you don't know how disk abstraction works.
                My issue is mainly how they coped with it, which has nothing to
                do with their (at the time) technical incompetence: they simply
                lied about the effects.
                Competent or not, lying on your corporate blog isn't a good
                choice.  It doesn't take any special skills or training to be
                honest on your journey from incompetence to competence, all it
                takes is integrity.
                  voltagex_ wrote 3 days ago:
                  What do you mean by "thin provision" here?
                    sneak wrote 3 days ago:
                    Use an abstraction layer between the virtualized block
                    device and the underlying storage system, and only write
                    used blocks to disk, and return zeroes for all unused
                    You don't need to wipe, zero, or TRIM anything to not leak
                    customer A data to customer B.
                  yte15 wrote 4 days ago:
                  Yeah. Agreed. I unfairly walked back solve to “deal with”
                  on you simply from knowing the considerations that go into
                  bursts of write load every time a customer clicks
                  At the time Linode had a host-side scrub daemon that simply
                  ate LVs as customers deleted. It’s technically simple, but
                  drive longevity and capacity on the host (the user is
                  probably recreating their VM, for example) is where it gets
                  tricky. External considerations. In the end scrubbing is
                  basically killing a few dozen inodes of user data, but the
                  architecture in VPS usually requires you to nuke the whole
                  image, including what is ultimately the host’s 59th copy of
                  Ubuntu. Just managing the iops without annoying neighboring
                  customers is a challenge.
                  To my cloning point I made at the top of the thread, Linode
                  was certainly no stranger to the reality distortion field
                  when it suited, and I think that’s yet another thing DO
                  copied. That vertical is closer to B2C since you’re usually
                  dealing with individuals, not sales teams, and glossing over
                  stuff is a bit easier than when your counterparty has a
                  better engineering team than you.
            TechBro8615 wrote 4 days ago:
            Between the two of them, they own less than 20% of the company. Is
            this a lot? Not in my opinion. They sold 80% of their company.
              ZephyrBlu wrote 3 days ago:
              Yes it is. Usually founders would only have a few percentage
              points at the tail end of things.
              tgtweak wrote 3 days ago:
              They are also in the holding co
              jkaplowitz wrote 4 days ago:
              Compared to how much most VC-fueled founders would own at IPO
              stage, sounds like a lot to me.
              Tostino wrote 4 days ago:
              It's a pretty big pie that got baked, that <20% is quite a lot in
              the scheme of things.
          yte14 wrote 4 days ago:
          The thesis of DigitalOcean was literally “this very established
          market needs a venture capital growth play because we saw Slicehost
          exit to Rackspace”. In the beginning the entirety of DO’s
          offering, tech for tech, was almost a direct lift of Linode and, as
          they scaled, made all the same technical mistakes and learning
          experiences that Linode did.
          I guess you could call that a fantastic product idea. I’d call it
          applying an aggressive exit strategy to Chris Aker’s fantastic
          product idea from 2003 and further commoditizing said product in its
            KaiserPro wrote 3 days ago:
            DO's offering was SSD backed small hosts for $5.
            Nothing else in the market offered that at the time.
            brightball wrote 3 days ago:
            As a happy Slicehost customer, I definitely saw Slicehost in every
            aspect of the DO approach.
              benatkin wrote 3 days ago:
              Some are saying that about Linode and I just don't get it.
              Loved Slicehost!!!
            MPSimmons wrote 4 days ago:
            Their approach to making VPS/Cloud offerings simple and
            approachable are really what set them apart, in my mind. I run all
            of my simple things there, because sometimes I don't want or need
            the complexity that actually managing things in Azure, GCloud, or
            AWS require.
            unilynx wrote 4 days ago:
            This doesn’t sound right. I know we evaluated linode vs do in
            2016, and dropped linode because of lack of volume support.
            Digitalocean had that, even if only in FRA1, but it surely was
            ahead of linode back then
            (Not sure if block storage came even earlier to other DO data
            centers, but as those were outside the EU they wouldn’t have been
            aantix wrote 4 days ago:
            "An aggressive exit strategy" when they started in "2003"?
            Aggressive, as in two turtles fighting.
              yte15 wrote 3 days ago:
              Linode was founded in 2003, not DigitalOcean.
            grey-area wrote 4 days ago:
            As a user of both services for years, the only point on which they
            are similar was/is that they both offer shared cheap VMs (as do
            lots of other services).
            Presenting early DO as a ripoff of linode is frankly absurd, the
            UI, user experience, API, Load balancing, backups, and docs were
            all vastly superior to Linode, and it honestly felt like the
            copying was more the other way round as Linode tried to catch up
            with their UI.
              jjav wrote 3 days ago:
              I'm puzzled by the praises on DO UI, since in the early days in
              particular I always found it intolerably terrible. Far less
              useful than Linode UI. Nowadays it's ok, but Linode is still has
              better UI.
            jacques_chester wrote 4 days ago:
            I was on Linode for a while and moved to DigitalOcean. At the time
            it was a very simple calculus.
            DigitalOcean was less established, less mature, offered fewer CPUs
            and less RAM per dollar and had only two (or was it three?)
            But they had SSDs and Linode did not.
            The difference in Wordpress performance was night and day. So I
            switched and I'm still there. Linode dragged its feet on SSDs. I
            don't care why or how. I cared that I could get what I needed
              ryandrake wrote 4 days ago:
              What's the difference like today? As a long time Linode customer,
              I just never even felt the need to shop around. Maybe I should!
              It's always been just fine for my "tiny duty" Wordpress host. I
              always knew DO existed, but figured it's the same $5 and I'm
              probably getting about the same thing so why bother switching. I
              guess I'm a good example of why stickiness matters.
                jacurtis wrote 4 days ago:
                Today the pricing and services are essentially matched. Someone
                will obviously fight be on this statement, but I think today
                they are essentially equal from a cost perspective. They all
                run SSDs and have similar cost per RAM/CPU core.
                But as others have said, Linode was around forever. Digital
                Ocean came in and disrupted them. When DO first came on the
                scene then you easily could have switched and got more for your
                money. But Linode has caught up and matched them. Right now
                they are both good. I have actually been favoring Linode lately
                with their new interface. But I have $3,000 or so of Digital
                Ocean credit that I am trying to use up first.
            tyingq wrote 4 days ago:
            I always wondered if they would eventually make a deliberate
            attempt to take over the "shared Cpanel hosting" market with a
            non-shared-host, non-cpanel model.  It seems ripe for change...lots
            of little players.
              neom wrote 4 days ago:
              The market was considerably too small and it would mean building
              to much towards the past.  The thesis of "millions of *new*
              developers are coming online over the next 20 years" was the main
              north star.
                tyingq wrote 4 days ago:
                It is small compared to cloud, but it's a ~$22 billion / year
                market.  Compare to IaaS at ~$50b.  So it's not tiny, but it is
                highly fragmented.
                And I think the solution could be layered on top of what they
                already have.  Cpanel is just a bunch of buttons, icons, and
                little apps to create web server instances and tie them to
                domains, database instances, backups, web file management,
                manage DNS records, and so on.    Basically just a consistent web
                app to put on top of their "droplet" ecosystem.  Much of it
                already exists, so a fair amount of the effort would just be
                marketing it.
                  neom wrote 4 days ago:
                  We were too busy building in the wake of AWS. Looking forward
                  and building into the paradigm shift was the strategy (and it
                  seemed to work!). :)
                    tyingq wrote 4 days ago:
                    Makes sense, though paradoxically, that market is growing
                    by around 10% per year.
            neom wrote 4 days ago:
            Actually, Ben and Moisey owned a managed hosting company that was
            coming under a lot of pressure from rackspace. DigitalOcean as a
            product was a direct response to that market pressure. I think if
            you ask any of the early executives, none of us loooovveed the
            venture component, it was a way to grow the business that was
            already growing rapidly with strong product market fit. Remember,
            a16z only invested once we were doing millions and millions in ARR.
             In terms of Linode, I have no idea what you're talking about.
            DigitalOcean had 1 click $5 SSD offerings years before
            linode/anyone else made any changes to their business.
              CerealFounder wrote 3 days ago:
              The real story is Ben and Moisey were running one of the largest
              hosting co's in porn and then there was a security problem via
              one of their upstream providers and it created a DISASTER.  Thats
              how DO was born from what I understand.
              yte14 wrote 4 days ago:
              I remember Linode being hesitant to dip below $20 because the
              thinking was that it would diminish the quality of support. That
              thinking was reinforced when you started with $10 (if I recall,
              it’s been nearly a decade) and we started getting large numbers
              of refugees burned by experiences with your support organization.
              Neighboring comments tell me it’s still a problem. We
              consciously didn’t want to grow $5 fast because we didn’t
              have capital to throw at any problem that developed. We, the
              market, not just Linode, also knew competing to the bottom on
              price largely relegated shared/cpanel/etc hosting to $0.99
              commodity status and we weren’t keen to kick off such a war for
              obvious reasons. (That was quite prescient, looking back from
              outside in 2021.)
              Anyway, yes, you eventually reached a position where you dictated
              the pricing structure, slightly annoyingly because it was a
              product that looked remarkably similar to ours (down to the
              incentivized Linode Library clone that’s getting praise
              elsewhere in this thread). I wasn’t talking about changes you
              forced. The entire product top to bottom was referenced against
              Linode’s work to grow you to a position to force those changes.
              Sorry if I wasn’t clear. I’m also not going after you for it;
              I’m only responding to fantastic product idea.
              It’s just odd that when competitors would ask me my thoughts on
              the “Linode clone” at 2011-era conferences that’s something
              that’s news to you. Is that really not apparent to an
              executive? If not that you did so, at least that seemingly the
              entire incumbency, not just Linode, thought so?
                thaumaturgy wrote 3 days ago:
                I've been a customer of both for years -- in Linode's case,
                since 2009. Your comments are coming across like sour grapes,
                so I think this is a good opportunity to hear about some of
                Linode's mistakes from a longtime Linode customer.
                First, you guys had the customer support interface compromise
                in 2013, and the worst part about that was the way that it was
                handled by your organization. Linode wouldn't own up to the
                compromise initially, dragged their feet on announcing anything
                about it, and then tried to downplay it.
                Then there was another similar incident in 2016, and,
                amazingly, the response from Linode was nearly identical to
                2013. No lessons learned. After that, I started seeing
                influential people on HN say things like, "don't use Linode". I
                stayed on Linode, but I also started using DigitalOcean after
                the 2013 compromise and split my hosted services evenly between
                the two of you after 2016.
                DigitalOcean aggressively iterated multiple aspects of their
                products in that time period. They announced block storage in
                2016. Your customers immediately started asking when Linode
                would come out with a competing service, and that didn't happen
                until 2018. Here, it was Linode rushing to build a DigitalOcean
                Linode initially focused on expanding RAM and disk space for
                your customers' instances at the same price points. Every year,
                you'd announce, "hey, we're doubling your RAM!" or some such
                thing. It was awesome, but I also thought at the time that you
                were shooting yourselves in the foot. How many customers looked
                at that and went, "yep, cool, now I can downsize my Linode and
                give them less money each month"? I know I did, at least a
                couple of times.
                Then, you chose to try to compete with DigitalOcean on price.
                As a long time Linode customer, I never wanted that. If I want
                a $5 VPS, I'll just go to DigitalOcean. Hell, you shouldn't
                even want me as a customer for $5. Let them deal with me
                instead. I wanted Linode to be the larger, slightly more
                expensive provider with the even better support.
                I've had to deal with Linode support a few times over the
                years. They've mostly been awesome and first class. I've never
                been unhappy enough with Linode to want to leave altogether.
                Both of you should be focused on eating AWS, not each other;
                showing up to a competitor's HN thread to complain about them
                being copycats is really poor form.
                  ObsoleteNerd wrote 3 days ago:
                  This just nailed just about everything I was going to say.
                  I’ve used and liked both since both started and this entire
                  thread is pretty embarrassing.
                jcampbell1 wrote 4 days ago:
                As an original Slicehost customer, and long time Digital Ocean
                and Linode customer, your version of history is bullshit.  I
                was looking to move from Rackspace after the Slicehost
                aquisition.  Moved to Digital Ocean because of the SSD
                offering.  It performed wonderfully.  Needed bigger servers,
                and Linode had just created an offering competitive with
                Digital Ocean.    I signed up and ran some benchmarks and Linode
                was about 25% faster than DO.  I moved everything to Linode and
                the company has been there ever since.    For what it is worth,
                my Linode bill is currently about $2000, and DO is $40.  I am
                calling you out as a loyal Linode customer who thinks Linode is
                stanmancan wrote 4 days ago:
                I was a huge Linode fan for years. I used them exclusively. DO
                showed up and slowly but surely started being the better deal.
                Lower entry points, better specs, and then finally a more
                robust product line. I slowly found myself going to DO for new
                servers and eventually moved everything there for simplicities
                Linode still has a special place in my heart, but they have
                some work to do if they want to remain competitive.
                  jamroom wrote 4 days ago:
                  Wow - really?  I use both Linode and DO extensively and
                  Linode is better on almost all fronts in my experience. 
                  Faster servers, better network, Linode's Object Storage is
                  way better than DO's "spaces" and Linode's support is hands
                  down the better of the two.  If you're going to spend $5 on a
                  server why would you go with DO unless you're already there?
                    stanmancan wrote 3 days ago:
                    Linodes support is great; I can't say much about DO because
                    I haven't had to use them.
                    Around the time I switched there was a lot going on. DO had
                    released their $5 droplets. Linode was still stuck on their
                    old, clunky UI, and the migration to the new "Cloud UI"
                    wasn't executed well. Then there was a few DDOS attacks
                    that took stuff down, and the multiple serious security
                    vulnerabilities that they did a -horrible- job managing.
                    I've been at DO for a number of years now and it's been
                    solid. I have a few dozen servers and take advantage of a
                    few of their services. Their Managed Databases are
                    incredibly well executed.
                    I've been happy over all so no reason to look elsewhere.
                    jjav wrote 3 days ago:
                    Same here, I use both but prefer Linode in every aspect.
                    Much better support and reliability in particular.
                    I moved a few very low-end hosts to DO when the $5 price
                    point appeared but have never been overly impressed. Later
                    Linode matched prices so no real reason to look into DO
                    But I do still use both. Partly to avoid migrating the DO
                    hosts I have but more because I just like to keep aware of
                    how both are evolving.
                    vinger wrote 4 days ago:
                    Last time I provision on linode and do at the same time a
                    created a ubuntu box.  I found I had to setup a few
                    additional things in linode.  Linode never felt as polished
                    which is fine.
                    The one thing that made do better was they had a datacenter
                    in my region.
                    No one mentioned vultr killer $2.50 which is where I would
                    go if I wanted a dev box to play around on.
                      smarx007 wrote 3 days ago:
                      I remember something being off in Vultr $2.50 offer which
                      made me stop halfway during sign-up. Had to go to [1]
                      again to remind myself: $2.50 VPS does not come with an
                      IPv4 address. At least today they openly mark it and I
                      think 5 years ago you'd only find it after a few clicks.
   URI                [1]: https://www.vultr.com/products/cloud-compute/
                        voltagex_ wrote 3 days ago:
                        This was an advantage to me at the time. My ISP
                        (Internode) had enabled dual-stack v6, and a few of the
                        other options I was looking at on LowEndBox came with a
                        NATed v4 address. Here was Vultr offering an IP I could
                        fully control, even point real domains to!
                        I don't know if this is still the case, but I also got
                        no SSH logspam from bots trying to log in on a v6 host.
                    maximus024 wrote 4 days ago:
                    > If you're going to spend $5 on a server why would you go
                    with DO unless you're already there?
                    I would go with anyone other than Linode, considering they
                    left the control plane running a publicly accessible
                    unpatched version of ColdFusion, which led to multiple
                    instances of them losing control of customer's data.
                    Anyone but Linode.
                      jjav wrote 3 days ago:
                      I mean that was terrible, but I know full well that every
                      company ever will have dumb vulnerabilities occasionally,
                      so by that metric I could never use anyone.
                      jamroom wrote 4 days ago:
                      Yeah I know about that incident - but also believe
                      companies have the ability to learn from past mistakes
                      and do better.
                        maximus024 wrote 4 days ago:
                        Unfortunately it wasn't a single incident.. fool me
                havelhovel wrote 4 days ago:
                Whether your claim is true or not, there’s more to a product
                than the underlying technology. Frankly, this line of
                discussion reads as sour grapes and reflects poorly on the
                Linode team.
                  webmobdev wrote 3 days ago:
                  I don't think it reflects poorly on them at all. When DO
                  started everyone still used the help document of Linode and
                  Slicehost to setup and spin a server on DO. They could do
                  that because DO was a clone of these services. To their
                  credit DO improved and grew, and that's no mean feat.
                    selcuka wrote 3 days ago:
                    They all offered a VPS, which is basically a Linux box with
                    root access. Any Linux tutorial would work on all three
                    I'm not arguing if DO was a clone or not, but saying that
                    "you could use Linode/Slicehost documentation because DO
                    was a clone" is a bit of a stretch.
                    ksec wrote 3 days ago:
                    Yes. For those of us that actually went through the
                    Slicehost, Linode era, the time when paying per month and
                    not per hour for a simple VPS before everything was rolled
                    into the word Cloud. Those comment read more like an
                    accurate account of history while others read it as an
                    attack of a company.
                  wastedhours wrote 4 days ago:
                  > more to a product than the underlying technology
                  Back when I was just hacking about on some SaaS ideas I
                  looked into both Linode and DO. The positioning of both
                  seemed quite separate to me, and DO "felt" more like the
                  product I should be using.
                  Whether or not the tech was different, or that feeling was
                  justified by anything other than an initial veneer is well up
                  for debate - but entirely agree, they're discreet products,
                  and this doesn't really reflect well on Linode.
                jiofih wrote 4 days ago:
                > it was a product that looked remarkably similar to ours
                As a developer, DO never looked anything like it. Linode was
                expensive and on the same playfield as Rackspace and a ton of
                other cloud hosts, very different from the
                instantly-spin-up-a-tiny-vm-for-five-bucks model. Their web UI
                also has always been miles ahead.
                The competition also didn’t have SSD as an option until much
                later, and that was a HUGE selling point for digital ocean at
                the time.
                  jjav wrote 3 days ago:
                  > Their web UI also has always been miles ahead.
                  I'd strongly disagree (been on DO since about 2012 and on
                  Linode a few years earlier; I still use both). DO UI is ok
                  these days but years ago Linode UI was far better in every
                  shiftpgdn wrote 4 days ago:
                  Lol, what? DO was basically a page for page copy of linode's
                  site and product offering in 2011-2013.
                    1shooner wrote 4 days ago:
                    I remember at that time feeling almost bad for Linode
                    because they had built up so much valuable educational
                    content about what you could run on their services, and I
                    was using it step-by-step on DO. The only differentiator
                    was the price. Of course DO quickly replicated and excelled
                    in providing that tutorial value as well.
                      kchr wrote 3 days ago:
                      But were they really doing anything other than
                      copy/pasting HOWTOs by Falko Timme?
                    disgrunt wrote 4 days ago:
                    They were both modeled after services like Slicehost I
                      yte15 wrote 4 days ago:
                      Negative. Slicehost launched in the middle of Linode
                      pivoting virtualization stacks after proving out the
                      business and running into limitations of their first
                      stack (UML). Slicehost was ... 2006, if memory serves?
                      Linode was a few years old by that point. For those
                      keeping score, Linode then went to Xen and now KVM just
                      like everyone else.
                      Linode and Slicehost were very similar stories, though.
                      Slicehost bootstrapped as well and was run by good
                        neom wrote 4 days ago:
                        You do know that Jason Seats, the founder of Slicehost,
                        was pivotal in the DigitalOcean story also?
                          yte15 wrote 4 days ago:
                          Yes. What’s your point?
                  lloeki wrote 4 days ago:
                  > As a developer, DO never looked anything like it.
                  The UI, the simplicity, SSDs, additional block storage... but
                  also the API and its doc, as well as IPv6, regions,
                  snapshots/backups, and availability. Later on, load
                  balancers, object storage and k8s. All of that much simpler
                  than AWS and both better thought out and more featureful than
                  Linode or OVH.
                  DO truly deserved their success.
                    addicted wrote 3 days ago:
                    Before I ever paid DO a cent, I made significant use of a
                    lot of their incredible documentation on setting up various
                    servers, setting up your confide correctly, etc.
                      creeble wrote 3 days ago:
                      Gotta +1 that. Whenever I'm looking for a howto, I pray
                      that there's a DO one already done. The quality (and
                      brevity) is usually the best.
                        867-5309 wrote 2 days ago:
                        agreed, the recent HN feature of Cockpit piqued my
                        interest and I prayed DO had a tutorial for debian. of
                        course, they did
                    ksec wrote 3 days ago:
                    DO definitely had UI, SSD first. But Block Storage,
                    Regions, Snapshots Backup and Load Balancer all were either
                    first on Linode or being worked on for a long time. Linode
                    also had Pooled Transfer and other tidbit for a long time
                    well before DO.
                    Remember we are talking about early days of DO. Of course
                    later DO innovate more and Linode had to follow. And the
                    new Linode UI is arguably better than DO. Although it did
                    took them years to make it. The beauty of competition.
                    riffic wrote 4 days ago:
                    The API is a key point many people miss when they think of
                    early DigitalOcean as just another VPS host.
                    viro wrote 4 days ago:
                    The simper than AWS aspect was one of the main reasons I
                    choose DO to do most of my cloud stuff. Also AWS had this
                    odd habit of not auto charging me so it would go a couple
                    months then I would get hit with multiple months worth of a
                    tasogare wrote 4 days ago:
                    I’m customer for years and I don’t use any of the
                    features you mentioned past the first two; I’m part of
                    the 5$ VM crowd for who this is the killer feature. Should
                    OVH have provided on-demand instead of yearly plans for VPS
                    I would have stayed there as I’ve my domains there
                  z92 wrote 4 days ago:
                  Right! Linode was $20/month at least and more focused to
                  businesses. Not the then unbelievable $5/month for SSH ssh
                  accessible virtual box with root access that DO started. Plus
                  the SSD. Other hosting providers later caught on with DO.
                  But the thing I liked best was their "no hidden cost". You
                  pay what you agreed before to pay. No surprise. No upsell,
                  trick sell which were common with all hosting at that time.
                  DO still maintains that honesty. Not sure what will happen
                  after their IPO.
                fastball wrote 4 days ago:
                You might be experiencing a form of survivorship bias /
                confirmation bias here.
                If you work at Linode, presumably people would come up to you
                asking about something they then couched to you as a Linode
                clone. That doesn't mean it's how people were talking about DO
                when not directly speaking with someone at Linode.
                  yte14 wrote 4 days ago:
                  I don’t understand how that impacts my point at all. If an
                  opinion is only held in one context it’s not actually held?
                  Is that what you’re saying? I’m sorry, I don’t follow.
                  Before DO VPS was (and somewhat remains) a community even
                  among competition. I’m not basing what I’m saying solely
                  on the example given.
                    fastball wrote 4 days ago:
                    Your point makes sweeping claims that "the entire
                    incumbency" thought of DO as a Linode clone.
                    Can I see your survey results from 10 years ago, or is this
                    an opinion formed by a Linode employee from a handful of
                    conference conversations?
                      webmobdev wrote 3 days ago:
                      As a user, I agree - DO was seen a cheaper clone of
                      Linode / Slicehost when they launched. I used to usually
                      recommend Pair and Linode to my clients and, later DO to
                      my more cost-conscious clients. At that time, I preferred
                      Linode over DO, because the support was better and the
                      prevalent practice than was to look suspiciously at new
                      hosts because a lot of them folded up. You looked to
                      older hosts, like Pair (and later Rackspace and Linode)
                      because you knew they were reliable in both tech and the
                      hosting business.
                        temp667 wrote 3 days ago:
                        I loved pair! Never followed what happened to them!
                          webmobdev wrote 23 hours 42 min ago:
                          They still seem to be doing really well - last heard,
                          they've migrated most of their servers from FreeBSD
                          to Linux and also offer Linode and DO like VPS
                    derefr wrote 4 days ago:
                    Perhaps it wasn’t their own mental model of the landscape
                    at all, but just what they considered to be the most
                    expedient way of getting the message across in terms
                    customers would understand.
                    Hypothetical analogy: if I were describing my
                    very-first-ever PaaS service, to competitors who’d only
                    ever heard of IaaS services — and this wasn’t the point
                    of the conversation (i.e. I wasn’t trying to sell them on
                    the benefits of PaaS), but rather just a supporting
                    statement to talking about how we do/don’t offer an IaaS
                    feature, because we’re a PaaS — then I’d probably
                    describe my PaaS by analogy to some popular IaaS that has a
                    feature-set closest to a PaaS.
                    In my own mental model, I have a separate node for
                    “PaaS”; but if I know that the people I’m
                    communicating with don’t — and teaching them what a
                    PaaS is would take time away from the real topic we’re
                    trying to focus on — then I’m going to describe my PaaS
                    provider as “basically like $foo IaaS provider” when
                    talking about how it has the same feature X. To them.
                      yte14 wrote 4 days ago:
                      Again, I’m not basing what I’m saying solely on the
                      conference example. I’m not arguing over the psychology
                      of multiple conference conversations from ten years ago
                      any further because it’s completely immaterial to my
                      point (and one example of many; the point of the example
                      was that it was openly discussed among competition, not
                      “let’s go to the mat on what constitutes an actual
                      opinion with the assumption that I don’t perceive
                      conversation appropriately”).
                        Closi wrote 3 days ago:
                        Have you ever watched Kitchen Nightmares? Bad chef's
                        are often surprised to get told their food tastes bad
                        because everyone always tells them how good their food
                        If you know someone is from a particular company, you
                        don't badmouth the company in front of them, but you
                        might badmouth the competitors.
                    jiofih wrote 4 days ago:
                    He is saying that your perspective as a Linode employee
                    might not represent how others saw Digital Ocean at the
                    time. Which for me is glaringly obvious from your comments.
                    EDIT: s/general public/others
                      hobs wrote 4 days ago:
                      Well a non-DO employee (and someone who ran things on
                      linode and then on DO) I would say its a fair read and
                      what the mindshare at the time was.
                      Linode had decent service but honestly the irc channel
                      was pretty toxic to noobs (one of the reasons I left!)
                      and finding a "cheaper linode option" was great.
                      That might have switched quickly, but it was definitely a
                      yte14 wrote 4 days ago:
                      I wasn’t talking about the general public. I was
                      talking about the incumbents. I said competitors, not
                      customers, and that wasn’t a corrected typo.
                      Edit: I responded to something that’s now been silently
                      edited out and replaced with “others”.
                        random5634 wrote 4 days ago:
                        I've noticed that the folks who aren't so attentive to
                        product / market fit and other items (customer
                        ergonomics maybe?) tend not to really see what they are
                        missing, what's different about the "other" guy that
                        means they are in some ways cleaning up. I wonder if
                        that describes linode a bit.
                        One issue early on for Linode was just abysmal security
                        despite claims. Lots of denial and lack of transparency
                        too which was even worse. For a biz focused offering
                        that was just a no go.
                        Even 8 year ago there was stuff with the bitcoin hacks?
                        Do folks remember any of this?
                        They might have been using cold fusion or something
                        because they got hacked again I think just like a year
                        These weren't just little corner case hacks / issues -
                        but major with plenty of denial and obfuscation from
                        There was this hack here: [1] I'm sure I'm missing
                        others (unsecured mysql databases etc?).
                        Anyways, at least in my world linode was actually seen
                        as the cheap/crappy offering even though they actually
                        cost more which was weird. But I def told folks to stay
                        away just because of the repeated lack of care around
                        I had no idea DO was at 350M+ ARR - nice job by them -
   URI                  [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10845170
                        jiofih wrote 4 days ago:
                        I guess you may think of that in the same way the
                        incumbents considered Amazon “another e-commerce
                        play” or Google as “another search engine” while
                        being blind to the real changes happening underneath.
              bombcar wrote 4 days ago:
              Which is amusing because Rackspace is now overpriced garbage as
              far as I can tell, or a wrapper around public cloud.
                paulie_a wrote 1 day ago:
                Rackspace was always overpriced garbage
                codegeek wrote 3 days ago:
                I have dealt with Rackspace exact 2 times and both times, it
                has been a horrendous experience.
                  bombcar wrote 3 days ago:
                  They make you call support to delete a “cloud server” -
                  glad I’ll only have to do that once more.
        Graffur wrote 4 days ago:
        There's already a lot of positive comments in here but I'll throw in
        another one. Tried DO out recently and I like how it set up.
        I feel like the biggest competition is specific, tailored services from
        the bigger players - Amazon Lightsail for example.
          sofixa wrote 4 days ago:
          > I feel like the biggest competition is specific, tailored services
          from the bigger players - Amazon Lightsail for example.
          Nope, the biggest competition is in the same niche - Linode, OVH,
            Graffur wrote 3 days ago:
            Is that what you think?
          tyingq wrote 4 days ago:
          I agree generally, but Lightsail is just obvious hot garbage.  The
          CPU throttling is crazy aggressive, and you'll see it after 30
          minutes of use, for all but the 2 most expensive of the 7 total
          I don't see how they could be maintaining a decent customer base with
          that setup, but I guess marketing is powerful.
            sombremesa wrote 4 days ago:
            I use Lightsail mostly to dodge Route 53 fees, since it comes with
            DNS management and I have a lot of hosted zones. However I'm also
            not a business and couldn't care less about the CPU throttling.
              tyingq wrote 4 days ago:
              That's interesting. I wonder if anyone has made some sort of api
              shim/facade to automate that route 53 avoidance.
        ArtWomb wrote 4 days ago:
        Would be interesting to see App Platform growth numbers. Lot's of
        competition: Heroku, Netlify, Fly.io, App Engine, Cloud Run, etc. But
        they may have hit the sweet spot in terms of features and pricing.
          mauflows wrote 4 days ago:
          The missing feature for me is more cache control. It's behind
          cloudflare but not configurable. So you can't cache json for instance
            arcticfox wrote 4 days ago:
            For me, the missing feature is ability to access private networks.
            (Noting here, for the DO product manager reviewing the thread..!)
              Tostino wrote 4 days ago:
              Can you elaborate on this? Just wondering what you mean because I
              have been using private networks and haven't really run into many
                arcticfox wrote 3 days ago:
                I don't think you can access them from the new App Platform, if
                I'm not mistaken. We use them heavily from regular Droplets,
                Kubernetes etc.
              phildougherty wrote 4 days ago:
              Aware of this pain. Feedback noted :)
        halfmatthalfcat wrote 4 days ago:
        I love DigitalOcean. The simplicity of their UI, friendly CLI tooling
        and (as a hosted k8s customer) the frequency of updates to their
        1. Their web UI stability is terrible (constantly hangs and errors out)
        2. Their hosted DB IOPS aren't competitive with other PaaS providers.
        There's also no way to scale DB size dynamically without upgrading to a
        new price tier which is overkill.
        3. Their Kubernetes Control Plane scaling is obfuscated. I had to
        contact support to realize that the control plane nodes are somehow
        tied to the size of your node pool when you create the cluster? That's
        not documented anywhere and was the cause of many control plane
        4. No ALIAS dns record, no way to serve Spaces from an apex domain. (I
        know this is a vendor specific implementation but it's table stakes
        Again, I'm a (mostly) happy DO customer and wish them the best but if
        they really want to be seen on the same level as AWS or GCP in terms of
        some parity, they need to include some of these QoL features.
          tehbeard wrote 3 days ago:
          I would add the DO API being all or nothing with permissions to that
          Not being able to give just DNS access to a script for updating
          LE/ACME DNS challenges means it'd be a non-starter at work.
          wakatime wrote 4 days ago:
          Nothing is perfect. We use DigitalOcean Droplets because they're more
          bang-for-buck than AWS EC2 instances, especially if you're doing a
          lot of disk IO. However, even though it's more expensive we use AWS
          S3 instead of DigitalOcean Spaces because it's faster, more reliable,
          and replicated automatically. I wrote about these decisions recently
   URI    [1]: https://wakatime.com/blog/46-latency-of-digitalocean-spaces-...
          jandrese wrote 4 days ago:
          5. Their IPv6 support is pants on head. [1] Yes, you read that right,
          they assign a /124 if you enable IPv6.    There is no provision for
          getting anything larger.  All configuration is totally static as
          well.  It's really incredible how botched the setup is, and it has
          been like this for years.
          If you're wondering if you're sharing the same /64 with an entire
          datacenter worth of droplets, the answer is of course.
   URI    [1]: https://www.digitalocean.com/docs/networking/ipv6/
            rand49an wrote 3 days ago:
            I don't know if I'm doing something wrong but am I right that a
            droplet firewall doesn't have any ability to create source
            exceptions to lock an open port down to a singular IP. Seems like a
            basic enough feature but I can't seem to find it.
            voltagex_ wrote 3 days ago:
            That's OK, OVH gives you a single IPv6 address with some VPS
            hisyn wrote 3 days ago:
            This -- this has me a bit frustrated and I'll eventually email them
            about it.
            I haven't contacted them about it but that makes sense sadly.  So
            they're getting a /64 from their upstream and just sharing that out
            to everyone.  This isn't IPv4, they need to make this right.
            Vultr, OTOH, gives each HOST a /64.  I've been doing most of my
            work on Vultr right now so I can use more than 16 IPs on a single
            host. I was/am hoping that providers would standardize somewhere in
            the middle:  Every customer account in each datacenter gets a /64. 
            I wouldn't mind all of my hosts having their own /64 to subdivide.
              jandrese wrote 3 days ago:
              The smallest allocation a customer should ever get with IPv6 is a
              /64.  You break a lot of stuff when you go smaller. 
              DigitalOcean's approach is kind of like sticking an entire
              datacenter behind a single IPv4 address.
              It's not like it is hard to get IPv6 address space either.  All
              they have to do is ask.  A VPS provider like DO can get a /32
              easy peasy.
                mnordhoff wrote 3 days ago:
                DigitalOcean has /32s from ARIN and RIPE.
                (And a /48 from APNIC???)
                (Edit: And a /36, /40 and /48 from APNIC?)
          jiofih wrote 4 days ago:
          Not being on the same level of feature parity with AWS/GCP can be
          considered a feature. Not everyone wants to drown in service
          orchestration and configs
            natemo wrote 3 days ago:
            100% - it's clear how everything works because they've pared down
            to the essentials. For their target market of small dev teams who
            just need to ship code, it's a godsend.
          sdflhasjd wrote 4 days ago:
          I actually think their UI is too form over function. One particular
          annoyance I had recently was with the DNS zone editor.
          It truncates both the record contents and the domain name, which
          means that if you've got a bunch of long domains with TXT records,
          telling them apart means copying the contents into a text editor to
          see the truncated text.
            somekey._dkim.subdomaina.domain.com      k=rsa; t=s; p=MIGfAAAA
            somekey._dkim.subdomainb.domain.com      k=rsa; t=s; p=MIGfBBBB
            somekey._dkim.subdomainc.domain.com      k=rsa; t=s; p=MIGfAAAA
          getting truncated down to
            somekey._dkim.subdo...     k=rsa; t=s; p=MI...
            somekey._dkim.subdo...     k=rsa; t=s; p=MI...
            somekey._dkim.subdo...     k=rsa; t=s; p=MI...
          Compared to AWS, which is visually unappealing, but I can actually
          see my DNS records....
            jacurtis wrote 4 days ago:
            I agree. I think their UI is actually a little too creative at
            times. It has lots of whitespace and a single color and that means
            people will say "clean", "minimal", "modern", "artsy fartsy".
            But I agree, that with something that coins itself "the developer
            cloud" it should provide critical information first. It is ok to
            kill some whitespace or put some monospaced fonts in there. You
            aren't trying to sell me an iPhone, I am trying to manage a server.
            Route53 on AWS is what I have been using for domain management and
            I like it because it doesn't mess around with cute UIs. It is
            strictly function. Instead of form fields for each TTL line and
            host line like other sites do, you just get a big multi-line text
            box and you use spaces and line breaks (gasp) to create your dns
              Closi wrote 3 days ago:
              I actually like their UI - I think Azure or AWS looks fairly
              scary to me, someone not that familiar with cloud architecture.
            quantumcd wrote 4 days ago:
            I agree, but I seem to recall creating/editing records much easier
            than Route53... particularly with the console redesign.
          invisiblea wrote 4 days ago:
          I'm _really_ disappointed with the managed DB service. The "75
          simultaneous connections per gigabyte of usable memory" limitation
          means cost wise it's cheaper just to spin up a 'real' database
            fastball wrote 4 days ago:
            I'm very happy with the managed DB service. A few gotchas, but the
            service itself has been incredibly stable with 100% uptime from
            what I can tell.
            coder543 wrote 4 days ago:
            > means cost wise it's cheaper just to spin up a 'real' database
            This is the case for literally every managed database service that
            I'm aware of.
            You pay a premium for the managed aspect.
              invisiblea wrote 4 days ago:
              That's an entirely fair point, but frustrating that the
              connection limits are not clearer in the docs.
                coder543 wrote 4 days ago:
                FWIW, if you’re using 75+ connections, it’s probably a good
                idea to add some kind of Postgres proxy in the middle like
                pgbouncer. Postgres doesn’t handle lots of connections well
                because each connection forks off its own full OS process, and
                the performance can degrade noticeably when you have too many
                connections to Postgres as a result.
                That’s been my experience, at least.
                  fastball wrote 4 days ago:
                  And DO's hosted Postgres allows you to easily configure
          nerdbaggy wrote 4 days ago:
          Their support is also very lacking, multi thousand a month spend with
          them buy tickets still take hours. But    support seems the hardest
          thing to scale especially with the number of tickets they get about
          things not their fault.
            jbrooksuk wrote 4 days ago:
            We had the chance to buy a support plan with DO in a previous job.
            May be worth asking if that's something they can help with?
          MrSaints wrote 4 days ago:
          Agree on all points (and definitely, a mostly happy customer too).
          (3) was the cause of numerous production incidents for us. We had to
          contact support to have it scaled up, and sometimes they'd take up to
          3 working days to get back to us. Happily paid more for AWS to get
          better support, and stability.
          bithavoc wrote 4 days ago:
          5. You can’t upload a custom image and assign a Floating IP to the
          Droplet, one of the most basic of the functionality of any cloud.
            closeparen wrote 3 days ago:
            It seems like Amazon et al have full-fledged SDNs while
            DigitalOcean is a little more primitive. Even customer-level VLANs
            are new. Prior to that, "private networking" was just a way to save
            on transit quota; you shared a LAN with everyone else in the
            Speculating and recalling old memories here, but: floating IP is
            implemented as an additional IP on an existing interface. DHCP
            can't assign multiple IPs for the same MAC. So there's got to be
            some DigitalOcean magic in the base images to figure out that a
            floating IP is assigned and configure the interface for it. You
            might be able to replicate this yourself, they just don't want to
            be responsible for support.
            Perhaps over time they will grow a more complex network fabric that
            will enable floating IPs to be their own DHCP-enabled interfaces
            straight on VMs, instead of the "dumb" forwarding rules they appear
            to be today. But also perhaps the lack of such things is why
            DigitalOcean is cheaper than Amazon.
            jakelazaroff wrote 4 days ago:
            Just double-checked my DO console — yes you can, I have a droplet
            with both.
            Edit: I'm wrong, see below.
              bithavoc wrote 4 days ago:
              Maybe we're talking about different things, docs here[0]
              > You cannot assign a Floating IP to a Droplet created from a
              custom image.
              Edit: I wanted to double-check because this would make my life so
              much easier, but no, I still can't use Floating IP with Custom
              Images. I imported a FlatcarLinux image from a URL and created a
              droplet; once the droplet launched, I still see this:
              > Floating IP: Disabled
              > Public IPv6 Address: Not available with custom images.
   URI        [1]: https://www.digitalocean.com/docs/images/custom-images/
                jakelazaroff wrote 4 days ago:
                Interesting — checked again and what I'm using is actually a
                snapshot. Not sure why that makes a difference, sorry for the
                  dstick wrote 4 days ago:
                  I guess that would be a slightly laborous work around?
                  Install vanilla linux, configure as needed. Save snapshot.
                  Treat it as a custom image :)
                    bithavoc wrote 4 days ago:
                    Yeah, Snapshots work quite well, you can even transfer them
                    between accounts and copy them between regions in the same
                    account, but it's a "transfer" meant to be used as a
                    migration mechanism, not distribution.
          staticautomatic wrote 4 days ago:
          They also have some of the best technical documentation on the web.
            sitkack wrote 3 days ago:
            I hold up this part of DO as one of the single best uses of the
            amazing tech writers our industry has, under appreciated and under
            paid, to punch way above their weight in a crowded market.
            Really really well done DO!
            KingFelix wrote 3 days ago:
            I agree, I had limited knowledge on a few things and was able to
            get it all sorted with their guides.  I think they offered an
            exchange of credits for tutorials or something.  My favorite part
            of their guides, the drop downs to pick your version.  Google can
            give me results to a simple ubuntu question that is ten years old,
            they had the option to pick which version you were using to get you
            the correct guides.  Brilliant
            tweetle_beetle wrote 4 days ago:
            I'm sure their own documentation is good, but certainly early on
            the tutorials always seemed to be a mess. Lots of similar articles
            written by different people with different structures and advice,
            without referencing other related tutorials. There seemed to be
            very little in the way of editorial control, but maybe that's
            better now. It was a good, cheap content strategy for SEO, but not
            a genuinely good resource.
              dumbsecreport wrote 4 days ago:
              Thats because a lot of it was lifted directly from the web. They
              paid people a stupid price per article to either write articles
              or copy paste documentation online while barely vetting it, only
              taking it down when people took the time to send in reports to
              staff. I'm sure things have improved since then.
              vinger wrote 4 days ago:
              Having 5 people install slightly different varations of a stack
              provided so much value it was and still is the best resource when
              installing a new stack.
            FlashBlaze wrote 4 days ago:
            Couldn't agree more. I wanted to setup nginx and add users in the
            sudo group and almost always their articles were the first to
            sjs382 wrote 4 days ago:
            This is a major reason that I became a customer and have been for
            8+ years.
            sdfhbdf wrote 4 days ago:
            Yep great SEO Strategy and raising Brand awarness. Win-win for
            people searching. Find out about how to install nginx on Ubuntu and
            then memorize that next time you need a VM you go that blue website
            with great tutorials.
            bredren wrote 4 days ago:
            Content growth done right.
            skrtskrt wrote 4 days ago:
            As I started learning how to spin up and manage Linux servers and
            then deploy my own (unmanaged) k8s on them, half of my bookmarks
            are DO documentation.
            52-6F-62 wrote 4 days ago:
            They really do. And it goes in tangents and details I wouldn't have
            expected. Their support is great.
        gizmo wrote 4 days ago:
        Excellent growth, fair margins. Probably worth about $3bn. If it IPOs
        at less than $5bn it's probably worth picking up. Long term
        digitalocean will struggle to maintain its margins when competing with
        Azure and AWS on one side, and Cloudflare edge computing on the other
        side, so I don't think it can command the same kind of premium we've
        seen from other tech IPOs.
        A big red flag is that 570,000 customers bring in only 357m in rev.
        That's $50 a month for the average customer. That's way too low.
          archon810 wrote 3 days ago:
          They raised money over the past several years at over $10bln
          valuation, there's no way they're going to debut at $3bln.
            bklyn11201 wrote 3 days ago:
            They raised in 2020 on a valuation between 1.1 and 1.2 billion
          bklyn11201 wrote 4 days ago:
          A newsletter about SAAS called CloudedJudgement sent this in January:
          > SaaS businesses are valued on a multiple of their revenue - in most
          cases the projected revenue for the next 12 months. Multiples shown
          below are calculated by taking the Enterprise Value (market cap +
          debt - cash) / NTM revenue. In the buckets below I consider high
          growth >30% projected NTM growth, mid growth 15%-30% and low growth
          So if DO is mid growth, you could use 17x as the EV / NTM multiple.
          So if 2021 revenue will be 320mm + 25% = 397mm NTM * 17x = 6749mm EV.
          Total debt is 263mm so best (rough) guess at equity market cap is
          6749mm - 263mm debt + 100mm cash
          staysaasy wrote 4 days ago:
          In today's frothy market, do you think that they'd only be at $3B?
          Not baiting at all, I'm curious on how you'd break this down as it's
          always an arcane art.
          I mainly wonder as companies like C3.ai are above a $10B market cap
          on 50% or less of DO's revenue. And C3 (just to extend the example)
          is carrying lower margin services revenue as well. Growth is somewhat
          different, granted.
          lapnitnelav wrote 4 days ago:
          Hello, I'm the $50 / month customer.
          Not an internet business per say, mostly used in the context of
          processing and storing data + internal apps.
          Do is great value, although not the cheapest. They need to double
          down on the useful items, maybe go a bit offroad in what they offer,
          lest they might be a in rough spot.
          nly wrote 4 days ago:
          $50 seems pretty good when you can get a $5 droplet.
            tgtweak wrote 4 days ago:
            Believe it or not, $50 is great for a "self service" company like
            this.  No enterprise sales teams pushing complicated billing or
            contracts, just customers (mostly devs/startups) choosing what they
            need without endless upsells.  Looking at churn and seeing that
            per-customer number go up over time is the real tell here.
            Keeping it simple is actually very hard :)
          fasteo wrote 4 days ago:
          I saw this as an advantage though. They do not have whale customers
          bringing a significant % of their revenue. I see lower risk here
          "Our average revenue per customer (which we refer to as ARPU) has
          increased significantly, from $35.97 in 2018 to $40.16 in 2019 to
          $47.78 in 2020. We have no material customer concentration as our top
          25 customers made up 11%, 10% and 9% of our revenue in 2018, 2019 and
          2020, respectively."
          Thaxll wrote 4 days ago:
          Because DO is not used in enterprise, there is no reasons to use DO
          at work when you can use all other cloud providers.
            heliodor wrote 4 days ago:
            Read through the comments. There are plenty of them stating what
            they love about DO.
              Thaxll wrote 4 days ago:
              I don't see why you would use DO it's vastly inferior to every
              cloud provider, the only reason people use DO is for the price,
              it's cheap compare to AWS, Google or Azure.
                heliodor wrote 4 days ago:
                That's okay, the comments can prove illuminating. People like
                the documentation. People like the simplicity. People like the
                UX. And more. Give the comments a read.
                If you value understanding how people make purchasing
                decisions, this is an opportunity to get some insight because
                as you can see, there's a lot more to it than what you were
                able to enumerate.
                Seems you might be a software engineer. This should interest
                you because an engineer that understand the business end of
                things is immensely more valuable than a heads-down coder in
                the majority of tech companies.
                Tostino wrote 4 days ago:
                For some workloads, it's also much faster for similar money.
                I looked into migrating my app to Azure, to get similar
                performance to what I have in DO was over 3x the monthly cost.
                Worked with Azure support to benchmark and try and come up with
                a plan to migrate, and the support rep ended by saying
                essentially "don't think we can get close to your current
                performance for near that price".
                It's not cut and dry.
                ForHackernews wrote 4 days ago:
                It's a lot cheaper, and because it's smaller they don't try to
                lock you into their own proprietary crap like the big three.
                Cost savings + flexibility/avoiding vendor lock-in are DO
                selling points in my mind.
          jakelazaroff wrote 4 days ago:
          I wonder what the distribution of revenue per customer looks like. I
          bet (hope?) that at the low end there are a lot of consumers who set
          up a $5 droplet to tinker around for a few months without doing much
          more, and that the revenue figures are propped up by a small group of
          bigger customers spending much more.
            CameronNemo wrote 3 days ago:
            I also think this distribution would be fascinating.
          jermaustin1 wrote 4 days ago:
          > That's $50 a month for the average customer. That's way too low.
          I vaguely remember a talk I had with an employee there was a time
          when I think the average user was paying only $20/mo, which at the
          time, I had a $250-500/mo bill depending on load.
          This was before they even had a load balancer product (so
          2012-2013-ish?), and I was running a fairly unsuccessful managed
          WordPress offering that had dynamic scaling based on the reported
          The infrastructure was just a big server for MySql, and a tiny server
          for the orchestrator. Then it would use the DO API to spin up new
          servers off a snapshot, ssh into them, and run the setup script to
          point to the right Wordpress instance in the database, then add it to
          the nginx reverse proxy list for the domain.
          The whole thing could scale up or down in 30 seconds. Sure it isn't
          as fast as AWS or Azure could scale, but we were in control, in code,
          before containerizing was even really a thing.
        fersarr wrote 4 days ago:
        So simple and nice to use
        dukeofdoom wrote 4 days ago:
        So how does one buy ipo shares? One of my resolutions for this year was
        to buy shares in companies I do business with.
          Havoc wrote 4 days ago:
          They allocate chunks to the big brokerages and you can apply for a
          piece. Think you need to meet sophisticated investor criteria tho
          sct202 wrote 4 days ago:
          You can sometimes buy pre-ipo shares on EquityZen or similar
          platforms if you meet certain standards. It's all very thinly offered
          though, and sometimes they bundle offers.
          sithlord wrote 4 days ago:
          Be a giant investor, ie a bank.  IPOs are there for banks to be able
          to buy up shares at  a low price, then dump it when retail investors
          get their turn to run it up before banks sell off.
            cat199 wrote 4 days ago:
            another option is that one can also choose to be rich to gain
            access to more wealth: [1] 200k/yr for 2 yrs, or >1M net worth %
   URI      [1]: https://www.investor.gov/introduction-investing/general-re...
              sevencolors wrote 4 days ago:
              So not for us "poors" making less than that. They really hate
              retail investors
              insert angry punk sentiment here
              eklavya wrote 4 days ago:
              Why isn't it regulated in the US? In India everybody gets a
              chance to buy in IPOs, it's randomly assigned regardless of how
              much you applied for. Promoters and institutional investors are
              even supposed to hold it for 9 months before they can sell it in
              the market.
                mtnGoat wrote 4 days ago:
                all decisions in the US are driven by dollars, and the
                guidelines are usually made by those that have a lot of
                dollars. so they create circular situations to benefit
              csmiller wrote 4 days ago:
              I think you can just take the Series 65 and be good to go these
              milkshakes wrote 4 days ago:
              being an accredited investor doesn’t magically get you IPO
              shares. they are very scarce and almost completely allocated to
              high volume institutions (you might get lucky if you have a very
              large relationship with one such institution but that’s harder
              and harder these days)
        yannoninator wrote 4 days ago:
        What is the point of DigitalOcean, Linode etc, when one can use the
        more reliable big cloud providers GCP/AWS/Azure.
        I don't think DO's offerings are strong enough to compete with the big
        players long term, especially in production.
        Seems like an exit for a later acquisition by a bigger company, like
        Slack with Salesforce.
          stanmancan wrote 4 days ago:
          Simplicity. As a solo dev I find AWS and GCP to be a nightmare. I do
          t have time to learn either interface, and not doing so is dangerous
          as not knowing the inner workings can have security or reliability
          consequences. Just look at all the exposed S3 buckets over the years.
          Just picking a VPS from Amazon is an absolute nightmare. All the
          different levels, with the credit bullshit.
          DO I can log in, pick a VPS with the specs I need and be done with
          it. I don’t need to worry about over using it and running out of
          credits and being throttled and having that to troubleshoot.
          DO has been reliable for me, affordable, and incredibly easy to
          understand and use.
          eljimmy wrote 4 days ago:
          I've been using Linode for 7 years now and I've had very little
          downtime. Pretty reliable in my experience.
          Mind you, I'm just hosting a simple website and mail server.
          syshum wrote 4 days ago:
          The offerings of DO and others are simpliar
          That is the target,  AWS you need a math degree to understand the
          billing and even then you will never know exactly what you will be
          billed until you are actually billed...
          This is not the case with DO and Linode
          Sure for a large enterprise that needs that complexity and flexiblity
          to squeeze every penny out it would not be a good fit
          but for SMB work loads,  it is great
          azemetre wrote 4 days ago:
          I don’t own a business just personal projects, but one reason why I
          prefer DO over AWS, GCP, and Azure is the billing aspect. With DO I
          just buy credits and if I go over the limit they cancel my services,
          I’m fine with that. With AWS I could rack up an insane bill, I’m
          not fine with that. Notifications about billing is not the same as
          suspending all services.
          This is why I like DO. If other cloud providers do have this please
          lmk because nothing makes me more nervous than having my personal CC
          on file with very little retribution as a consumer (I don’t want to
          get banned from all Google services for doing a charge back).
          tw04 wrote 4 days ago:
          Do you think Kia or Toyota (the brand, not the company) have a long
          term play, or is everyone going to shift to Lexus, Mercedes and BMW?
          Not everyone is interested in paying the exhorbitant pricing the big
          cloud providers charge, regardless of features.
          Now they might get acquired by the big boys and run under their
          existing brands as a low cost alternative. But the services aren't
          going away.  I'm willing to bet the big guys want nothing to do with
          them though. It'll just eat into their margin.
          tyingq wrote 4 days ago:
          For many use cases, the included free bandwidth and no "oops I just
          spent a lot more than I intended to" features make DO vastly superior
          to AWS/GCP/Azure.
          mgkimsal wrote 4 days ago:
          Doing anything with those big vendors is an absolute headache, and
          requires a lot of vendor-specific knowledge/experience, which is
          expensive (and their offerings are generally expensive and/or harder
          to estimate pricing on).
          DO/Linode and others are perfectly fine serving a sizable audience of
          users who do not need the complexities that those larger vendors
          I struggled for days trying to add more disk to an existing ubuntu
          image on Azure in 2018.  Documentation sucked - both what was there
          and discoverability.  Their instructions just... didn't work, the UI
          was incredibly ....  Azure wasn't my choice - client had O365 and
          their 'IT vendor' had 'credits' on Azure, so... I had to go with
          Azure... and it was a huge time sink to do some basic stuff that is
          literally a few clicks with DO and Linode.
          Yes, I don't think I can create private VPNs in the cloud with DO - I
          don't need to for most projects.  The level of functionality
          DO/Linode/etc provide is adequate for a lot of projects, and they are
          growing their new functionality to serve needs in a way that seems
          usable by people without needing to be a certified expert in
            yannoninator wrote 4 days ago:
            I think AWS LightSail is what you would want, also Cloud Run is
            also another option.
              mgkimsal wrote 4 days ago:
              AWS Lightsail is not available on Azure.
              And... there's nothing inherently horrible about lightsail, but
              if I've decided that's all I need, I may go with other companies
              that have that model as their main focus.  If I decide I want
              more of the AWS infrastructure, I'd stay in AWS (or... GCP, or
              Azure, or whatever).
          jwr wrote 4 days ago:
          I use DO because it's simple and easy. I got tired of dealing with
          AWS corporate-sized crap, all I want is to spin up several servers
          using terraform and get work done. They way you can automatically
          apply firewalling rules to server tags, for example, is exactly what
          I need.
          And don't even mention Azure, where I feel like in a huge maze of
          mirrors. Nothing is simple, and you waste lots of time on clicking
          and figuring things out.
          So yes, DO has very real value, and I'm glad they exist. The only
          roughly comparable provider I found was Vultr, which I like quite a
          bit, too.
          brobdingnagians wrote 4 days ago:
          The point is that they aren't GCP/AWS/Azure. I don't want to give
          more money to Eric Schmidt, Bill Gates, or Jeff Bezos.
          Also, GCP/AWS/Azure don't support OpenBSD. There are others who do. I
          just want a good dedicated server for a good price.
            nunodonato wrote 4 days ago:
            This. Some of us are actually disgusted with amazon and prefer not
            to do business with it. Yes, even AWS
          Kovah wrote 4 days ago:
          Easy setup and maintenance, and reliable pricing. Order a Unix server
          for $10 per month, 1TB traffic included, and you get a server with
          fixed hardware specs. If you get more customers, you scale the server
          and pay a higher price. On AWS and others: spin up a server that
          costs more in comparision to Digitalocean, and prepare to find costs
          on your bill you never thought you would have: traffic, permanent
          storage, logging,...
          leesalminen wrote 4 days ago:
          While I wouldn’t use DO et. al. for my production environment
          (it’s on AWS), I’ve got a handful of ancillary services that
          don’t need the complexity of AWS.
          They’re so small and inconsequential to the business that I don’t
          want to spend any time thinking about the security risk of keeping
          them anywhere near production. They don’t need access to prod data
          so why put them in a position where they could potentially allow
          access to it?
          So, for me, the easiest thing was to be put them with a completely
          different company. Don’t have to worry about any potential issues
          with imitating it on AWS (via additional accounts, different region,
          etc) which are all prone to human failure over time.
          Maybe I’ve a bad reason, but it works for me and DO gets ~$50/mo
          from us and I’ve never considered switching.
          nowherebeen wrote 4 days ago:
          I think it mostly comes down to price (at least for me).  They will
          always have to be cheaper than big cloud providers to stay
          jnwatson wrote 4 days ago:
          The company I work for solely uses DO.    It has all the things you
          might want that won't get you cloud vendor locked.  Plus their UI is
          actually useable, unlike my experience with AWS.
          Many SV startups just end up taking their VC investment and handing
          it to AWS over a period of 18 months.
          snarfy wrote 4 days ago:
          What's not strong about them?  Not everybody needs or wants AWS's
          1000+ service offerings.  Managed k8s and databases are all most
          people want.
            leesalminen wrote 4 days ago:
            What’s uptime like on DO managed databases? The primary thing
            keeping me on AWS is Aurora for MySQL. The uptime we’ve
            experienced is phenomenal.
          lbotos wrote 4 days ago:
          for some of us, it's a desire to not give Google, Amazon, or
          Microsoft any money.
          The big clouds offer great features, but My 5/mo Linode is fine to
          run a 3 user matrix server.
          (I used to work at Linode, but that didn't sway my desire to avoid
          the big 3.)
            ryukafalz wrote 4 days ago:
            Oh hey cool to see you in here! Thanks for referring me all those
            years ago - I'm still there! :)
          rmorey wrote 4 days ago:
          I think the value prop is simplicity and customer service.
          DO/Linode/Vultr offer a way simplified product that's perfect for the
          long tail of users that don't need all the more advanced aws/gcp
          features. Plenty of great businesses are already being run on these
          smaller platforms. And you just have to read one of the GCP account
          horror stories on here to get the opportunity for better customer
          service for SMB customers
          halfmatthalfcat wrote 4 days ago:
          More transparent pricing, faster iteration cycle on new features,
          easy-to-use cloud UI, developer tooling, etc
          BasedInfra wrote 4 days ago:
          The pie is big enough and also don’t think big cloud players and DO
          are after the same customers.
          34% of the web still runs on Wordpress. A lot want somewhere cheap
          and easy to use with more power than shared hosting.
            yannoninator wrote 4 days ago:
            AWS LightSail is basically DigitalOcean with a huge jetpack with
            the ability to extend into AWS's ecosystem.
              ksec wrote 3 days ago:
              LightSail is really really slow. You will have to pay double to
              get similar CPU performance to DO.
              But I guess that is the price you pay for being AWS ready.
              Dirlewanger wrote 4 days ago:
              You on the AWS Social Media Team or something? People don't want
              to do business with Amazon.
          pmorici wrote 4 days ago:
          Simpler and less complex?
            yannoninator wrote 4 days ago:
            They currently have an incident with their droplets right now at
            the time of writing, hardly reliable.
              jakelazaroff wrote 4 days ago:
              Remember when an AWS outage a few months ago took down like half
              the Internet?
                FDSGSG wrote 4 days ago:
                Yeah, but nobody is going to blame you when half of the
                internet is down.
          jsight wrote 4 days ago:
          It seems to me that these services are much more cost effective than
            offtop5 wrote 4 days ago:
            I'd argue that the billing is much more straightforward.
            For example, you just pay $5 for a monthly droplet. AWS offers a
            near competitor to this,AWS light sail.
            Digitalocean is easier to use, but only marginally. I strongly
            suspect many users who find AWS to be a confusing mess try DO
            instead. I used DO for a long time , but I've since switched to AWS
            cashewchoo wrote 4 days ago:
            This. DO, imo, crushes AWS's pricing, documentation and ease of use
            for anyone but big enterprises. I used their managed k8s for a
            personal project as someone who's never used k8s before and it:
            * didn't cost more than the $10 droplet it ran on
            * just worked
            * super easy to operate
            * has had no issues so far
            If I were working for any kind of not-ridiculously-large business
            that wasn't connected to an endless funnel of money (VC/adtech...?)
            I'd pick DO.
              RKearney wrote 4 days ago:
              How do you figure?
              $10 DO Dropplet gets you 1 CPU, 2GB RAM, 50GB SSD, and 2TB of
              $10 AWS Lifghtsail instance gets you 1 CPU, 2GB RAM, 60GB SSD,
              and 3 TB of transfer.
                jsight wrote 4 days ago:
                Oh, thanks, I was not aware of Lightsail at all. It seems like
                this brings them much closer to being a competitive offering.
                JonoBB wrote 4 days ago:
                The performance of that DO droplet will be far in excess of
                nickjj wrote 4 days ago:
                > How do you figure?
                The last time I checked Lightsail uses similar CPU credits[0]
                as their t2 ec2 instances.
                As long as you're only using a tiny portion of your CPU it's
                fine but if you start doing work on your instance where your
                CPU is being used for a sustained amount of time then you run
                out of CPU credits and performance is drastically degraded.
                DigitalOcean has no such mechanism. I've never had a droplet's
                CPU performance get penalized because I used the allocated
                resources that I was paying for.
   URI          [1]: https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AWSEC2/latest/UserGuide/bu...
                  ec109685 wrote 4 days ago:
                  Yeah, your right:
   URI            [1]: https://aws.amazon.com/lightsail/faq/
                    coder543 wrote 4 days ago:
                    I haven't really touched Lightsail in years, but this page
                    shows a really nice graph that helps you understand your
                    instance's CPU usage: [1] From what I've seen of benchmarks
                    online, DO's droplets have better sustained (and often
                    overall) performance than Lightsail, and this looks to be
                    the reason why.
                    (Which isn't to say people should avoid Lightsail, but I
                    don't think Lightsail is the obvious 1:1 replacement for DO
                    that a couple of people in this thread want it to be.
                    Lightsail intentionally restricts various things to avoid
                    cannibalizing their normal AWS sales.)
   URI              [1]: https://lightsail.aws.amazon.com/ls/docs/en_us/art...
                cashewchoo wrote 4 days ago:
                Their VPS pricing is competitive but pretty much everything
                else isn't. Specifically, I'm looking at EKS vs DO managed k8s,
                block storage for VPS's, and so on.
                  RKearney wrote 4 days ago:
                  DO charges $0.10/GB per month for block storage, the same as
                  AWS Lightsail charges for block storage. AWS also has
                  Lightsail Containers which are far cheaper than EKS and is
                  their DO/Linode/etc equivalent.
                  Lightsail also offers load balancers for $18/mo compared to
                  DO's $10, $30, or $60 per month.
                  DO $15/mo managed DB 1G 1vCPU 10G SSD
                  AWS $15/mo managed DB 1G 1vCPU 40G SSD
                  I'm really not seeing how "pretty much everything else isn't"
                  with respect to their offerings.
                    cashewchoo wrote 3 days ago:
                    Huh, you're right. I guess the main place DO beats AWS is
                    in their managed k8s pricing, which is funnily enough one
                    of the main thing I use. Is lightsail containers more like
                    docker or more like k8s? It reads to me that it's more like
        rvz wrote 4 days ago:
        That sounds like a buy signal. I like this stock.
          unixhero wrote 4 days ago:
          Well it is not listed just yet! What is it a buy signal for?
            jnwatson wrote 4 days ago:
            That you can buy it at all is a buy signal.  This is a sure sign of
            too much money chasing too few opportunities.
        unixhero wrote 4 days ago:
        Fantastic company.
        jimmyed wrote 4 days ago:
        One would imagine they'd make their APIs resilient before this?
   DIR <- back to front page